Parashath Va-Yétzé’ (Genesis XXVIII,10-XXXII,3) 12/2/11

A.

Ya‘aqov on the advice of both his parents, makes his way to Haran, and has an encounter at a place named Luz (XXVIII, 19) where he spends the night and dreams: והנה סלם מצב ארצה וראשו מגיע השמימה והנה מלאכי אלקים עלים וירדים בו: כו' ויקץ יעקב משנתו ויאמר אכן יש ד' במקום הזה ואנכי לא ידעתי: ויירא ויאמר מה נורא המקום הזה אין זה כי אם בית אלקים וזה שער השמים: (“And behold a ladder was positioned down to the earth, its head reaching to the heavens; and behold angels of G-d ascending and descending on it.... And Ya‘aqov awoke from his sleep and said, Surely, there is Ha-Shem in this place, and I did not know. And he was afraid and said, How awesome is this place! It is none other than the house of G-d and this is the gate of heaven”; ibid., 11-17), whereupon he marks the site with a stele and changes its name to Béyth É-l (“House of G-d”).

Rashi comments on Ya‘aqov’s vision: א"ר אלעזר בשם ר' יוסי בן זמרא הסולם הזה עומד בבאר שבע ואמצע שיפועו מגיע כנגד בית המקדש שבאר שבע עומד בדרומה של יהודה וירושלים בצפונה בגבול שבין יהודה ובנימין ובית א-ל הי' בצפון של נחלת בנימין בגבול שבין בנימין לבין בני יוסף נמצא סולם שרגליו בבאר שבע וראשו בבית א-ל מגיע אמצע שיפועו נגד ירושלים (“Said R’ El‘azar in the name of R’ Yossi ben Zimra, This ladder is standing in Bë’ér Sheva‘ and its midpoint reaches opposite the Beyth ha-Miqdash, for Bë’ér Sheva‘ stands in the south of Yëhuda and Yërushalayim is in its north, on the border between Yëhuda and Binyamin, and Béyth É-l was in the north of the territory of Binyamin, on the border between Binyamin and the bënei Yoséf; it comes out that a ladder whose feet are in Bë’ér Sheva‘ and its head in Béyth É-l reaches its mid-point opposite Yërushalayim”).

Rashi’s comment is puzzling, not least because the Talmud records: ואמר ר' אלעזר מאי דכתיב "והלכו עמים רבים ואמרו לכו ונעלה אל הר ד' אל בית אלקי יעקב וגו'" אלקי יעקב ולא אלקי אברהם ויצחק אלא לא כאברהם שכתוב בו "הר" שנאמר "אשר יאמר היום בהר ד' יראה" ולא כיצחק שכתוב בו שדה שנאמר "ויצא יצחק לשוח בשדה" אלא כיעקב שקראו בית שנאמר "ויקרא את שם המקום ההוא בית א-ל" (“And R’ El‘azar said, 'What is written. "And many nations will go and say, 'Go and we shall ascend to Ha-Shem’s mountain, to the house of the G-d of Ya‘aqov....’" [Isaiah II,3]; G-d of Ya‘aqov and not G-d of Avraham and Yitzhaq?! It is not like Avraham, in connection with whom [the Temple is called a] "mountain," as it is said, "as it is said today, 'On the mountain Ha-Shem is seen’" [Genesis XXII, 14]; and it is not like Yitzhaq in connection with whom "field" is written, as it is said, "And Yitzhaq went out to converse in the field" [ibid., XXIV, 63], but like Ya‘aqov who called it "house," as it is said, "And he called the name of that place Béyth É-l...." [ibid., XXVIII, 19]'”; פסחים פ"ח.), i.e., the very same R’ El‘azar asserts that Ya‘aqov’s Béyth É-l is the site of his father’s ‘aqeida, where the Béyth ha-Miqdash would one day be built; in other words, that the head of the ladder was over Yërushalayim, and not the middle.

So how do we reconcile Rabbi El‘azar with himself?

B.

Rashi offers his solution: אמרו יעקב קראו לירושלים בית א-ל וזה לוז ולא ירושלים ומהיכן למדו לומר כן אני אומר שנעקר הר המורי' ובא לכאן וזו היא קפיצת הארץ כו' שבא בית המקדש לקראתו עד בית א-ל וזהו "ויפגע במקום" ואם תאמר כשעבר יעקב אבינו על בית המקדש מדוע לא עכבוהו שם איהו לא יהב לבי' להתפלל במקום שהתפללו אבותיו ומן השמים עכבוהו איהו עד חרן אזל כדאמרינן כו' וקרא מסייע לן "וילך חרנה" כי מטא לחרן אמר אפשר עברתי על מקום שהתפללו אבותי ולא התפללתי יהב דעתי' למהדר וחזר עד בית א-ל קפצה לי' ארעא עד בית א-ל (“[Hazal] said, ‘Ya‘aqov called it Béyth É-l, but this is Luz and not Yërushalayim; so where did they learn to say this? I say that Mt Moriya was uprooted and came hither, and this is the "jumping of the earth" [qëfitzath ha-aretz] said [in the Talmud], that the [site of] the Temple came toward him to Béyth É-l, and this is "And he encountered the place" [XXVIII, 11]; and if you say, When Ya‘aqov our father passed the [site of] the Temple, why was he not detained there? Did he not set his heart to pray in the place his fathers had prayed? And from Heaven he was detained; he went to Haran, as we say [in the Talmud], and Scripture supports us, "And he went to Haran" [ibid., 10], that he reached Haran, and said, "Did I possibly pass by a place where my fathers prayed and I did not pray?" He set his mind to return and returned to Béyth É-l, and the earth jumped for him as far as Béyth É-l'”).

Ramban begs to differ: כל אלה דברי הרב ולא נראו לי כלל (“All of these are [Rashi’s] words, and they are not at all right to me”). He first takes issue with Rashi’s characterization of qëfitzath ha-aretz, which is never described elsewhere as uprooting some geographical feature from its location and bringing it to a person, but rather as shortening one’s journey from one place to another; thus, the Talmud understands that when our parasha asserts וילך יעקב חרנה (“And Ya‘aqov went to Haran”), followed immediately by ןיפגע במקום (“and he encountered the place”), implying that he had not yet reached Haran, it means that Ya‘aqov was miraculously transported back to Har ha-Moriya, the site of the ‘aqeida and future site of the Béyth ha-Miqdash.

Ramban can also find no source for Rashi’s quotation of R’ El‘azar. The closest to it is the following midrash: ר' אלעזר בשם ר' יוסי בן זמרא אמר הסולם הזה עומד בבאר שבע ושפועו מגיע עד ביה"מ מ"ט ויצא יעקב מבאר שבע ויחלום והנה סולם ויירא ויאמר מה נורא המקום הזה (“R’ El‘azar said in the name of R’ Yossi ben Zimra, 'This ladder is standing in Bë’ér Sheva‘ and its slope reaches to the Béyth ha-Miqdash; what is the justification? “And Ya‘aqov went from Bë’ér Sheva‘...and dreamt, and behold a ladder... And he was afraid, and said, 'How awesome is this place'”'"; בראשית רבה פס"ט סי' ה'); as the Mattënath Këhunna clarifies, the verse is משמע שהי' מכוון עד ב"ה שהוא בית אלקים וזה שער השמים מכוון כנגדו(“making known that [the ladder] was directed toward the Béyth ha-Miqdash which is the ‘house of G-d’, ‘and this is the gate of heaven’ is [also] directed toward it”). Thus, the midrash as it has come down to Ramban and us is consistent with R’ El‘azar’s view in the Talmudic passage cited supra.

However, our midrash continues: א"ר יהודה ב"ר סימון הסולם הזה עומד בביה"מ ושפועו מגיע עד בית א-ל. מ"ט ויירא ויאמר מה נורא המקום הזה ויקרא שם המקום ההוא בית א-ל (“Said R’ Yëhuda ben R’ Simon, 'This ladder is standing in the Béyth ha-Miqdash and its slope reaches until Béyth É-l. What is the justification? "And he was afraid and he said, 'How awesome is this place and called the name of that place Béyth É-l’”),'" and the Mattënath Këhunna likewise continues that R’ Yëhuda: סבר מדקרא למקום לוז בית א-ל שמע מןנה ששער השמים ששם ראש הסולם מכוון כנגדו ומדייחד המורא למקום ב"ה ששם הי' שוכב ש"מ שלפחות רגלי הסולם הי' שמה וגו' (“reasoned from that he called the place Luz Béyth É-l, it meant that the slope of the ladder is directed to ‘the gate of heaven’ which is there, and since [Ya‘aqov’s] fear is centered on the site of the Beyth ha-Miqdash where he was lying, it is clear that at least the feet of the ladder were there...”; וע"ע פי' הרא"מ שם ברש"י). So, what was Rashi thinking?

C.

Maharal mi-Prag begins his explanation of Rashi’s reasoning by asking a question: What measure of sanctity inheres in the middle of the ladder, such that the Béyth ha-Miqdash should be situated immediately below it? It is not hard to see the sanctity inher-ent in the head, which is in the heavens, or even in the foot, which puts the lower realm into contact with the upper, supernal one; but why the midpoint?

He answers כי דעת רש"י ז"ל שהוא סובר כי ראוי להיות בית המקדש תחת אמצע הסולם נגד בית המקדש שלמעלה כי בזה האופן הי' הסולם נתון בשוה בין בית המקדש שלמעלה ובין בית המקדש שלמטה (“that Rashi’s opinion is that he reasons that it fitting for the Temple to be under the ladder’s mid-point apposite the Temple Above, for in this fashion the ladder is placed equally be-ween the Supernal Beyth ha-Miqdash and the Béyth ha-Miqdash here below”). Were the celestial Temple at one end and the earthly one at the other, it would emphasize not the equivalence and balance between the two, but rather the vast gulf between them.

The head of the ladder is in the heavens, he continues, לומר כי העולם התחתון קשור בעליונים ועולים השמימה כסולם הזה שיש מדריגות בה (“to say that the lower world is bound to supernal things, and ascend heavenward like this ladder on which there are rungs”). There are degrees of sanctity leading ever upward, like the rungs of the ladder. The existence of these levels or degrees of sanctity is the reason why the ladder is angled upward.

אמנם בית המקדש במה שהוא בית וועד השכינה ושם יבא האדם לעבוד את ד' יש בו שני הצדדים מתיחס לעליונים ותחתונים והכל שוים בו כו' ולכך ראוי שיהי' בית המקדש עומד תחת אמצע שפוע הסולם שהסולם הוא התחלפות בין עליונים לתחתונים הולך מצד אל צד ובית המקדש כלול משניהם תחת אמצע הסולם (“However the Temple, insofar as it is the Shëchina’s meeting place, where a man comes to serve Ha-Shem, has both sides, relates to supernal and lower things, and all are equal in it... and therefore it is fitting that the Temple stand beneath the midpoint of the ladder’s slope, for the ladder is the exchange between supernal and lower things, going from side to side, and the béyth ha-Miqdash contains both of them under the ladder’s midpoint”).

Maharal finds support for this thesis in the Talmud: גדולים מעשה צדיקים יותר ממעשה שמים וארץ דאלו במעשה שמים וארץ כתיב "אף ידי יסדה ארץ וימיני טפחה שמים" ואילו במעשה ידיהם של צדיקים כתיב "מכון לשבתך פעלת ד' מקדש אד-ני כוננו ידיך" (“Greater are the deeds of tzaddiqim than the creation of heaven and earth, for concerning heaven and earth it is written, ‘My hand founded earth, and My right hand cultivated heaven’ [Isaiah XLVIII, 13], whilst concerning the handiwork of tzaddiqim it is written ‘An establishment for Your dwelling have you effected, Ha-Shem, a sanctuary, Ad-nai, Your hands have prepared’ [Exodus XV, 17]”; כתובות ה.); thus, since G-d’s left hand created the earth and His right the heavens, they are separate and distinct, and require the ladder to bridge the gap; only the Béyth ha-Miqdash in the middle, made with both hands, unites both worlds.

The foot of the ladder is in Bë’ér Sheva‘ is because it is uniquely positioned to channel blessings into this world (cf. Genesis XXVI, 22-33), and Béyth É-l’s special status is indicated by its name, because הי' בו ענין אלקי כו' כמו שאמרו על בית א-ל שלא שלט שם מלאך המות שמלאך הוא בתחתונים (“it partook of the Divine... as [Hazal] said about Béyth É-l that the angel of death did not reign there, for angels are manifest in the lower realms”).

D.

So does Maharal outline for us Rashi’s rationale, the only problem being that דברי ב"ר לא יסבלו זה (“the words of [the midrash] will not support this”). The midrash offers us Rabbi Yossi, who places the foot of the ladder in Bë’ēr Sheva‘ and its head in Yërushalayim, or Rabbi Yëhuda, who places the foot in the Temple and the head in Béyth É-l; neither appears to be Rashi’s girsa.

The key to this misunderstanding, in my humble opinion, lies in Maharal’s reference to the angel of death having no power in Béyth É-l. The Talmud relates of the original Luz: ר"מ אומר כופין את הלוי' ששכר הלוי' אין לה שיעור שנאמר "ויראו השומרים איש יוצא מן העיר ויאמרו לו הראנו נא את מבוא העיר ועשינו עמך חסד" וכתיב "ויראם את מבוא העיר" ומה חסד עשו עמו שכל אותה העיר הרגו לפי חרב ואותו האיש ומשפחתו שלחו "וילך האיש ארץ החתים ויבן עיר ויקרא שמה לוז וגו" כו' ואף מלאך המות אין לו רשות לעבור בה וגו' (“R’ Mé’ir says, 'One enforces accompaniment [lëvaya], for the reward for lëvaya has no limit, as it is said, "And the sentries saw a man coming out of the city, and said to him, 'Please show us the approach to the city and we shall do kindness with you.’" And it is written, "And he showed them the approach to the city" and what kindness did they do with him? That city was wiped out by the sword, and that man and his family they let go. "And he went to the land of the Hittim and built a city and called its name Luz..." [cf. Judges I, 23-27] and even the angel of death does not have permission to pass through it....'”; סוטה מ"ו:). The midrash (בראשית רבה פס"ט סי' ז') tells substantially the same story (adding the detail that it was called Luz (“almond tree”) because a luz obscured the entrance to a cave through which the approach to the city was gained), and attributes it to R’ El‘azar.

The city taken by the bënei Yoséf in the account supra is the Luz which Rashi describes, on their border with Binyamin. But this Luz surely had no sanctity at all; it was a Canaanite town no less depraved than the others, and it suffered the same fate. The city is noteworthy for the novel way in which it fell, and the spectacular reward given the citizen who betrayed it to Israel and his descendants. That man went elsewhere, to the south (“the land of the Hittim; cf. Genesis XXIII, 3 ff.) and there, presumably on the northern edge of their territory in proximity to Jerusalem, founded the city over which the angel of death held no sway.

The question, then, is where was the Luz whose name Ya‘aqov changed?

In light of this, it seems to me that Rashi saw a version of the midrash which did not survive into the era of Ramban, some 200 years later, and misinterpreted it to refer to the older Luz, later put to the sword by the bënei Yoséf; this is what led him to the conclusion that qëfitzath ha-aretz meant bringing the mountain to Luz/Béyth É-l.

But the Torah often refers to places by names which appear out of sequence, even anachronistic (thus, for instance, Bë’ér Sheva‘ is mentioned by name in Genesis XXI, 14, but its naming occurs only later in v. 31); and so it appears in this case; R’ El‘azar, as we have seen, clearly held that Béyth É-l (and therefore Luz) was in the vicinity of Yërushalayim; the girsa of the midrash used by Rashi, according to which the ladder stretches over the Béyth ha-Miqdash with its head above Béyth É-l, can thus be seen not to contradict any of the other statements of R’ El‘azar.

And Maharal’s sublime explanation of the midrashic rationale remains perfectly valid.

Parshath Va-Yétzé’ (Genesis XXVIII,10-XXXII,2) 11/12/10

A.

Ya‘aqov’s journey to Haran and subsequent marriage to Lavan’s daughters forms the subject of this week’s parasha. Ya‘aqov, we are told, fell in love with Rahél, the younger of the two, and agreed to work seven years for her hand. In the end, Lavan lived down to his Arammi reputation as a swindler and trickster, and Ya‘aqov awoke to find himself married to Lé’a, the elder daughter. Only after he agreed to work another seven years was he able to marry his true love, Rahél.

ויאהב גם את רחל מלאה כו' וירא ד' כי שנואה לאה ויפתח את רחמה ורחל עקרה (“...And he also loved Rahél more than Lé’a... And Ha-Shem saw that Lé’a was hated [sënu’a] and He opened her womb, and Rahél was barren”; XXIX,30-31). The harsh wording prompts Hazal to explain: ראוי' היתה בכורה לצאת מרחל דכתיב "אלה תלדות יעקב יוסף" אלא שקדמתה לאה ברחמים (“It was proper for the first-born to come from Rahél, for it is written, ‘These are the offspring of Ya‘aqov, Yoséf’ [Genesis XXXVII, 2, implying that Yoséf was first in rank], but Lé’a preceded her through rahamim”; בבא בתרא קכ"ג).

The gëmara goes on to clarify: מה קדמה לאה ברחמים דכתיב "ועיני לאה רכות" כו' רבא אמר לעולם רכות ממש ולא גנאי הוא לה אלא שבח הוא לה שהיתה שומעת בני אדם שהיו אומרים ב' בנים יש לה לרחל וב' בנות יש לו ללבן גדולה לגדול וקטנה לקטן היתה יושבת בפרשת דרכים ושואלת גדול מה מעשיו ואמרו "איש ידע ציד" וקטן מה מעשיו ואמרו "איש תם ישב אהלים" היתה בוכה עד שנשרו ריסי עיני' והיינו דכתיב "וירא ד' כי שנואה לאה" כו' מה שנואה ששנואין מעשי עשו בעיני' (“What [does it mean that] Lé’a preceded through rahamim? It is written: ‘And Lé’a’s eyes were weak’ [XXIX, 17].... Rava said, 'They were truly weak, and it is no insult to her, but praise of her, for she would hear people say, "Rivqa has two sons and Lavan two daughters; the elder daughter for the elder son, and the younger for the younger." And she would sit at the crossroads and ask, "What does the elder one do?" And they said, "a man who knows how to trap" [Genesis XXV, 7; i.e., to fool and swindle people – Rashi ad loc.]. "And what does the younger do?" "A perfected man, sitting in tents" [ibid., i.e., studious and upright]; she would cry until her eyelashes fell out; and this is what is written, "And Ha-Shem saw that Lé’a was sënu’a..." What is sënu’a? That the deeds of ‘Ésav were sënu’in in her eyes'”; ב"ב שם וע"ע זוה"ק ח"א קנ"ד. דא"א שלאה היתה שנואה ממש דכל אינון בני מעלי מלאה נפקי). Lé’a was shown mercy, because the prospect of marrying such a rasha‘ was unspeakable to her.

The application of Divine mercy to Lé’a would also seem to be indicated by the language of the verse itself, since it is the shém Ha-Shem, emblematic of the middath ha-rahamim which saw her condition and, apparently, dealt with it. Reading the passage as we do, our eyes are astonished to fall upon the following statement by the Maharal mi-Prag: הלידה במדת הדין כדכתיב "ויפתח אלקים את רחמה" (“Giving birth [leida] is a matter of the middath ha-din, as it is written, ‘And Eloqim opened her womb’”; גבורות ד' פס"ג).

As Rabbi Mënahem Mendel Breier points out in his notes on the Maharal, this is not precisely the wording of our verse, nor does it occur anywhere else in Tanach. However, this does not, in my opinion, necessarily mean that the Maharal is misquoting the verse; rather, it appears that he does not feel that the antecedent of the third person pronoun implied in the prefix of va-yiftah (“and He opened”) is Ha-Shem, as one would ordinarily conclude from the wording. What causes him to reach that conclusion? And what are the implications for our passage?

B.

That leida is a matter of din may be deduced from other sources, e.g., the mishna, where we learn: על שלש עבירות נשים מתות בשעת לידתן על שאינן זהירות בנדה בחלה ובהדלקת הנר (“Because of three transgressions women die at the moment they are giving birth: Because they are not careful about nidda [cf. Leviticus XII, 1-8, XV, 1-33], about separating halla [cf. Numbers XV, 18-21], and about kindling the Sabbath light”; שבת פ"ב מ"ו). Clearly there is an element of din there. Rahél herself took note of the element at the moment Dan was born to her servant Bilha, whence his name (Genesis XXX, 6), and it again made its appearance when she died giving birth to Binyamin, the inadvertent result of her husband’s curse concerning Lavan’s stolen tërafim (ibid., XXXI, 32-35, Rashi ad loc.; XXXV, 16-19).

So the Maharal plainly has on what to rely in stating that leida involves din. What remains to be established is how he derives it from our verse.

As I have written in the past (cf. A”Z Yashir, parshath Va-Yéshev 5768), primogeniture (bëchora) has an interesting duality to it. The first-born son is called his father’s bëchor, but the alternative term for bëchor, peter rehem (literally, “the one who releases the womb”; cf. Exodus XIII, 2, 12-15; XXXI, 19-20; Numbers XIII, 15) is clearly a reference to the mother’s first-born son. In the most ordinary case, when a man has but one wife, this is a distinction without a difference. But in the case of Ya‘aqov, there were arguably four bëchoroth to choose from: Rë’uvén ben Lé’a, Dan ben Bilha, Gad ben Zilpa, and, as we have seen, Yoséf ben Rahél. Though Ya‘aqov himself called Rë’uvén his bëchor (Genesis XLIX, 3), his treatment of Yoséf and his pronouncement, אפרים ומנשה כראובן ושמעון יהיו לי (“Efrayim and Mënashe – Yoséf’s sons – will be like Rë’uvén and Shim‘on to me”; XLVIII, 5), and Moshe’s later statement (Deuteronomy XXXIII, 17, Rashi ad loc.) suggest that it was not the final decision. Ya‘aqov had his reasons for changing his mind, of course, but our gëmara reveals the judgment of Heaven. Lé’a preceded Rahél through rahamim, ומתוך צניעות שהיתה בה ברחל החזירה הקב"ה לה (“And because of the modesty which was in Rahél the Holy One, Blessed is He, returned it to her”). How was this exemplary modesty shown?

C.

A little thought will reveal that Lavan’s deception could not have been carried out without a measure of connivance on the part of the sisters. Elsewhere, the Talmud asks: ומאי צניעות היתה בה ברחל כו' אמר לה מינסבא לי אמרה לי' אין מיהו אבא רמאה הוא ולא יכלת לי' כו' אמר לה ומאי רמיותא אמרה לי אית אחתא דקשישא מינאי ולא מנסיב לי מקמה מסר לה סימנין כי מטא ליליא אמרה השתא מיכספא אחתאי מסרתינהו ניהלה והיינו דכתהב "ויהי בבקר והנה הוא לאה" כו' מתוך סימנין שמסרה רחל ללאה לא הוה ידע עד השתא (“And what was the modesty in Rahél?... [Ya‘aqov] said to her, 'Will you marry me?' She told him, 'Yes, but Daddy is a trickster and you can’t [get the better] of him....' He asked her, 'And what is the trick?' She said, 'I have a sister who is older than me, and he will not marry me off before her.' [Ya‘aqov] gave her signs [by which he would be able to recognize her]. When the [wedding] night arrived, she said, 'Now my sister is going to be shamed,' and passed on the signs to her. And this is what is written, ‘And it was in the morning, and behold it was Lé’a [Genesis XXIX, 25]’.... Because of the signs which Rahél had transmitted to Lé’a, Ya‘aqov did not know [who she was] until now”; מגילה י"ג:).

The signs of recognition are only half of this story of sisterly love and self-sacrifice; had it not also been for Rahél’s exemplary modesty, such that Ya‘aqov was not so familiar with her voice and mannerisms, he would still have suspected something wrong. If, as our verse tells us, Divine rahamim was shown to Lé’a because her high aspirations to holiness would not allow her to countenance marriage to ‘Ésav, the vehicle of that mercy was Rahél’s incredibly self-sacrificial act of hesed, given that she could not have known that Ya‘aqov would acquiesce and work another seven years for her.

So Lé’a’s womb was opened and she began to bear children; but Rahél was barren. Why?

As we have already established (A”Z Yashir, Parshath Va-Yéra’ 5771), the word rahamim is a compound which expresses a ratio between hesed and din; when the hesed and din are Divine in character, each is individually marked by the Divine names Ha-Shem Eloqim (Genesis II, 4 cited in Rashi’s comment on I, 1). It is therefore instructive that when the Almighty laid down the conditions of childbirth to the first woman, we read: ויאמר ד' אלקים אל הנחש כו' אל האשה אמר וגו' (“And Ha-Shem Eloqim said to the snake.... To the woman He said....”; III, 14-16). Both Divine Names were present in the expression.

This, I believe, is the source of the Maharal’s remark, and the reason why he inserted Eloqim into our verse; if Divine hesed was present at the opening of Lé’a’s womb, din (required, if it is an expression of rahamim) was also present, and Rahél had taken the din on herself, by transmitting the hesed to Lé’a. This serves to explain Ya‘aqov’s seemingly callous and cold-hearted response to Rahél’s anguish over her own inability to conceive a child: התחת אלקים אנכי אשר מנע ממך פרי בטן (“...Am I in place of Eloqim, who has kept from you the fruit of the belly?”; XXX, 2). It was up to Rahél to pray for children, מפני שהקב"ה מתאוה לתפלתן של צדיקים, as Hazal tell us; “because the Holy One, Blessed is He, is desirous of the tëfilla of tzaddiqim” (יבמות ס"ד.).

D.

The English word “prayer” is a wholly inadequate translation of tëfilla. The word originates from a primal root pé-vav-lamed which is itself unattested in the Biblical corpus, but whose suffixed derivatives convey a range of meanings such as analysis, discrimination, examination, investigation, and the like, whilst its prefixed derivatives convey a general sense of humility, subordination, and lowliness (e.g., tafél, “subordinate, or of secondary importance”; nafal, “to fall”; shafél, “humble, lowly,” etc.). The verb most generally translated “to pray,” hithpallél, is reflexive, that is, it denotes an action which the actor performs on himself. Tëfilla, therefore, is introspective at the same time that it is communication with the Almighty, a self-analysis, distinguishing and discriminating the causes and roots of one’s problems, afflictions, hopes, needs, and desires; the underlying concepts are very similar to those of din.

Rahél wanted children, as every normal woman does. Her barrenness, we see, was a matter of din. Interestingly, the Torah tells us, so was her eventual pregnancy with Yoséf: ויזכר אלקים את רחל וישמע אלי' אלקים ויפתח את רחמה (“And Eloqim remembered Rahél, and Eloqim listened to her and opened her womb”; XXX, 22). Why was the opening of Rahél’s womb a matter of din rather than hesed?

The verse immediately preceding opens: ואחר ילדה בת (“And afterward, [Lé’a] bore a daughter....”). Hazal ask: מאי "ואחר" לאחר שדנה לאה דין בעצמה ואמרה י"ב שבטים עתידין לצאת מיעקב ששה יצאו ממני וארבעה מן השפחות ואם זה זכר הרי לא תהא אחותי רחל באחת מן השפחות מיד נהפכה לבת (“‘What is ‘And afterward?’ After Lé’a judged a judgment on herself and said, 'Twelve tribes are destined to descend from Ya‘aqov; six have come out from me and four from the servants [Bilha and Zilpa]. If this [fetus] is male, my sister Rahél will not be equal to one of the servants!' Immediately, [the fetus] became a daughter....”; ברכות ס.).

Whom Lé’a named Dina. She repaid her debt to her sister, whose pregnancy was thus min ha-din, a matter of judgment and justice, not mercy.

Parshath Va-Yétzé’ (Genesis XXVIII,10-XXXII,3) 12/5/08

A.

As our parasha opens, Ya‘aqov finds himself on Har ha-Moriya, the site where his father, Yitzchaq, had been offered as a sacrifice, just as the sun is setting: ויקח מאבני המקום וישם כמראשתיו וישכב במקום ההוא (“And he took from the stones of the place, and he set [them] as his bolsters and lay down in that place”; XXVIII, 10). As Rashi ad loc. explains, עשה כעין מרזב, he made a sort of “channel” out of the stones in order to lie down, safe from the local fauna. In short, this was his bed.

The midrash (בראשות רבה פס"ח סי' י"ג) records a three-way dispute concerning the precise number of stones which Ya‘aqov took for the purpose: ר"י אמר י"ב אבנים נטל, אמר כך גזר הקב"ה שהוא מעמיד י"ב שבטים כו' ר"נ אמר נטל ג' אבנים, אמר אברהם יחד הקב"ה שמו עליו. יצחק יחד הקב"ה שמו עליו. ואני אם מתאחדות הן שלשה אבנים זו לזו יודע אני שהקב"ה מיחד שמו עלי כו' רבנן אמרי מיעוט אבנים שנים, אברהם יצא ממנו פסולת ישמעאל וכל בני קטורה, ויצחק יצא ממנו פסולת עשו וכל אלופיו ואני אם מתאחדות ב' אבנים זו לזו יודע אני שאינו יוצא הימני פסולת(“Rabbi Yehuda said, 'He took twelve stones; he said, "Thus did the Holy One, Blessed is He, decree that He would raise up twelve tribes."' Rabbi Nechemya said, 'He took three stones; he said, "The Holy One, Blessed is He focused His name on Avraham; the Holy One, Blessed is He, focused His name on Yitzchaq; and I, if these three stones are unified, I know that the Holy One, Blessed is He will focus His name on me.'" The Rabbanan say, 'The minimum of "stones" is two; "From Avraham there went forth the dross of Yishma‘el and all the sons of Qtura [Avraham’s second wife; cf. Genesis XXV, 1-4], and from Yitzchaq there went forth the dross of ‘Esav and all his chiefs, and I, if these two stones are unified, I know that no dross will issue forth from me"'”).

So we see that each of the disputants saw historical significance in the number of stones selected: Rabbi Yehuda saw in the number twelve an allusion to the twelve tribes which would arise from Ya‘aqov; Rabbi Nechemya saw in the number three an allusion to the very special Divine favour shown to the three Patriarchs; and the Rabbanan saw in the number two a reference to the Divinely ordained selective breeding program which would result in those twelve tribes.

It is striking, though, that only the case of the Rabbanan records the rationale which was used to arrive at the number stones selected in the first place. It seems reasonable to ask what chain of reasoning led Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Nechemya to the very different numbers twelve and three, respectively, upon which they based their drashoth.

B.

Let us begin with Rabbi Nechemya.

The word even, of course, has a simple basic meaning, in that it refers to any sort of stone of any size or shape. In that sense, and in the absence of an actual defining numeral, it is hard to see how anyone could disagree with the assessment of the Rabbanan.

However, it seems to me that a clue presents itself in that our verse does not declare that Ya‘aqov took just any avanim, but rather took mé-avnei ha-Maqom. The latter word, of course, means “place,” as we have translated it above, but (as our midrash notes a bit earlier [שם, סי' י' ]), it is also a nickname for G-d, שהוא מקומו של עולם ואין עולמו מקומו (“for He is the Place of the world, and His world is not His place”). Hence, it is possible to translate the phrase ‘from G-d’s stones”.

How might this insight aid us in our quest?

The Talmud (עירובין מ"ח.) establishes that גופו שלוש אמות, the length of the body of a typical man is halachically defined to be three amoth long. Elsewhere (סוכה ז:) we learn that גברא באמתא יתיב (“a man occupies an ama”). Hence, we may conclude that the typical man is three amoth long by one ama wide. In yet another place (עירובין ג:), the Talmud establishes that כל אמות באמה בת ששה (“all amoth [used in the Torah refer] to an ama of six [tfachim]”; מובא להלכה ברמב"ם בהל' כלאים פ"ח הי"ז). Thus, a typical man is calculated to be 18 tfachim long and 6 tfachim wide (for reference, a standard tefach is estimated at 3.65 in.). Now, in the first mishna in Bava Bathra, a gvil (that is, an undressed building stone) is halachically mandated to measure 6 tfachim by 6 tfachim (גם זה מובא להלכה ברמב"ם בהל' שכנים פ"ב הי"ח וע"ע טור חו"מ סי' קנ"ז).

Hence, it seems to me, Rabbi Nechemya might have reasoned that it would take three of “G-d’s stones”, i.e. halachically mandated building stones, to make up Ya‘aqov’s, since three such stones laid end to end extend the halachically defined length of a typical man, and each stone is as wide as our typical man. From this number, thus derived, he could go on to construct his drasha.

C.

So how might Rabbi Yehuda have been reasoning?

From the treasurehouse of midrashic insights (פרקי דרבי אליעזר פל"ה) we learn that Ya‘aqov was said to have utilized stones from the very altar on which his father, Yitzchaq, had been offered as a sacrifice on Har ha-Moriya. In yet another midrashic source (תנא דבי אלי' זוטא פ"ב) we find the logical device called a gzeira shava involving Exodus XX, 21 , מזבח אדמה תעשה לי (“and altar of earth shall you make for Me”) and Genesis II, 7, וייצר ד' אלקים את האדם עפר מן האדמה (“and Ha-Shem, G-d, formed the adam, dust from the earth”) used to establish that that fateful altar had been constructed of the very earth used to form the first man. Leaving the midrash and returning to the Talmud (סנהדרין ל"ח.), we learn that אדם הראשון גופו מבבל, the first man’s body had been formed of the earth of Bavel. If this is so, then it follows that the stones used by Avraham to build the altar and, in turn, by Ya‘aqov to make his bed, were stones of Babylonian origin.

A little attention to the geography of the region brings to mind that most of Bavel, modern-day Iraq, is a flat alluvial plain formed by the mud and silt brought down by the mighty Euphrates and Tigris rivers. In such a region, gvilim, building stones, would be rare commodities indeed. The Torah itself points to this fact in discussing the first post-diluvian human settlements in the region: ותהי להם הלבנה לאבן (“and the brick became stone for them”; Genesis XI, 3), on which Rashi comments: שאין אסנים בבבל שהיא בקעה (“for there are no stones in Bavel since it is an alluvial plain”).

With this in mind, we examine one more Talmudic reference (שבת ז.), where Rashi comments: סתם לבינה ארכה ורחבה ג' (‘a common brick’s length and width is three [tfachim]”; ד"ה לבינה).
We may therefore conclude, in light of the above, that “G-d’s stones” in the Babylonian sense refers to halachically standard bricks. Having already established the halachic dimensions of the typical man at 18 x 6 tfachim, it will be seen that a double row of six bricks each fills the bill for Ya‘aqov’s bed. Having thus determined the number of stones, Rabbi Yehuda went on to make his drasha.

D.

Whatever the number and dimensions of Ya‘aqov’s selections mé-avnei ha-Maqom, the Talmud (חולין צ"א:) finds evidence that the stones were indeed unified in a subsequent verse, after Ya‘aqov awoke from his prophetic dream: וישכם יעקב בבקר ויקח את האבן וגו' (“And Ya‘aqov got up early in the morning and took the stone....”; XVIII, 18; note the singular).

And what did G-d say to him in that dream?

אני ד' אלקי אברהם אביך ואלקי יצחק הארץ אשר אתה שכב עלי' לך אתננה ולזרעך: והי' זרעך כעפר האדמה ופרצת ימה וקדמה צפנה ונגבה ונברכו בך כל משפחת האדמה ובזרעך: (“I am Ha-Shem, G-d of Avraham your father and G-d of Yitzchaq; the land upon which you are lying, to you shall I give it and to your progeny. And your progeny will be like the dust of the earth [note that this is the same phrase used to describe the formation of the first man], and you will spread west and east and north and south; and all the families of the earth will be blessed through you and through your progeny”; ibid., 13-14).

In other words, each of the drashoth came true: G-d showed favor to Ya‘aqov as He had to the first two patriarchs; and Ya‘aqov did sire the twelve tribes of Israel who would inherit the Holy Land and spread out in all four directions, none of whom would be rejected as Yishma‘el and ‘Esav had been. Note also that the verb u-faratzta, “and you will spread”, is in the singular, not the plural. The séfer Lechem l’Fi ha-Taf points out that the letters which make up the word tzaddiq, צדי"ק, are the initial letters of the four points of the compass, north (צפון), south (דרום), west (ים, literally the [Mediterranean] Sea), and east (קדם), to indicate the incalculable extent of the influence of a true tzaddiq, in all directions. The wording of the last clause in verse 14, ונברכו בך כל משפחת האדמה ובזרעך, in which “through you” is decisively separated from “and through your progeny”, emphasizes the precious legacy which Israel have from their eponymous ancestor, all of whose actions were undertaken with holy purpose.

To include the selection of the stones for his bed, on a night spent on Har ha-Moriya.

Parshath Va-Yétzé (Genesis XXVIII,10-XXXII,3) 11/15/07

A.

So Ya’aqov left his home in the Holy Land, and traveled to Paddan Aram to find a wife. There, he met and fell in love with his cousin, Rachel, and contracted with her father, Lavan, to labor seven years for her hand in marriage. But Lavan cheated him, and he found himself married to Rachel’s older sister Le’a; so, he contracted for another seven to marry his beloved.

Le’a was compensated for her husband’s coolness toward her (understandable, under the circumstances) by being granted great fecundity. Rachel, on the other hand was barren, and the contrast caused her personally great emotional distress, as well as friction between the sisters: ותרא רחל כי לא ילדה ליעקב ותקנא רחל באחתה ותאמר ליעקב הבה לי בנים ואם אין מתה אני: ויחר אף יעקב ברחל ויאמר התחת אלקים אנכי אשר מנע ממך פרי בטן: (“And Rachel saw that she had not borne a child to Ya’aqov, and Rachel became jealous of her sister, and she said to Ya’aqov, I must have sons, and if not, I shall die! And Ya’aqov became angry with Rachel and said, Am I in place of G-d, Who has held back from you the fruit of the womb?” XXX, 1-2).

The midrash suggests that Rachel’s outburst was a plea that Ya’aqov pray on her behalf, and elaborates the conversation as follows: התחת אלקים אני כו' ממך מנע ממני לא מנע: א"ל כך עשה אביך לאמך?! לא חגר מתניו כנגדה?! א"ל אותו לא הי' לו בנים אבל אני יש לי בנים. א"ל וזקנך לא הי' לו בנים וחגר מתניו כנגד שרה. א"ל יכולה את לעשות כשם שעשתה זקנתי (“Am I in place of G-d... From you He has held back, from me He has not held back. She said to him, Did your father do thus to your mother?! Did he not go to war [i.e., pray] for her?! He said, He did not have any children, but I have children. She said, Did your grandfather not have children? And he ‘went to war’ for Sara! He said, You can do as my grandmother did....” ב"ר פע"א סי' י').

The conversation seems callous to the point of being surreal: Why should Ya’aqov so cavalierly refuse to pray for his wife, especially given that he was supposedly so much in love with her?

B.

The Talmud tells us how Ya’aqov’s parents had prayed for children: יצחק אבינו עקור הי' שנאמר "ויעתר יצחק לנכח אשתו". "על אשתו" לא נאמר אלא "לנוכח", מלמד ששניהם עקורים. א"ה "ויעתר לו" -- "ויעתר להם" מבעי לי'! לפי שאינו דומה תפילת צדיק בן צדיק לתפילת צדיק בן רשע (“Yitzchaq our father was infertile, as it is said, ‘And he prayed intensely in his wife’s presence’ [XXV, 21]; ‘for his wife’ is not said, but in [her] presence, [which] teaches that they were both infertile. If so, [the verse continues] ‘and Ha-Shem overturned for him’ - it ought to read ‘overturned for them!’ [It reads as it does] because the prayer of a tzaddiq ben tzaddiq is not like that of a tzaddiq ben rasha”; יבמות ס"ד.).

The point of the gmara seems to be that even though both Rivqa and Ya’aqov were infertile and praying earnestly for an end to the Divine decree of barrenness, it was his prayer that was answered, not hers, on the grounds that, as the son of Avraham, he was a tzaddiq ben tzaddiq, whilst she, though a tzaddeqeth in her own right, came from an idolatrous home. Hence, it seems, her t’filla was less efficacious than her husband’s.

But the gmara seems counter-intuitive: Surely a tzaddiq ben rasha, somebody who has struggled against the limitations of his upbringing and emerged victorious, a tzaddiq in his own right, is more meritorious than a tzaddiq ben tzaddiq, someone who has been nurtured since birth on the sterling example of his parents.

The Rosh seems to reach this very conclusion in one of his responsa (תשובות הרא"ש סי' ד), in which he advises that a ba’âl t’shuva, a penitent is prefereable as a shaliach tzibbur to lead his community in prayer, since Chazal tell us that מקום שבעלי תשובה עומדין צדיקים גמורים אינם עומדין (“In the place where ba’âlei t’shuva stand, complete tzaddiqim are unable to stand;” ברכות ל"ד.).

Armed with this, we turn to a comment of the Maharsha on the gmara cited supra: אע"ג דבפ"ק דברכות בעי למימר דיש צדיק וטוב לו כגון צדיק בן צדיק ויש צדיק ורע לו כגון צדיק בן רשע ואדחייא לה התם מדכתיב "לא יומתו אבות" גו' מ"מ לענין שתהא התפלה מקובלת יותר לבטל גזירת העקרות קיימא הך סברא כדאמר הכא (“Even though in the first chapter of Brachoth [7a] the claim is made that there is such a thing as a tzaddiq who has it good, i.e., a tzaddiq ben tzaddiq, and a tzaddiq who has it bad, i.e., a tzaddiq ben rasha, this is rejected over there on the basis of what is written: ‘Fathers will not be put to death [for the sins of the sons, nor sons for the sins of the fathers;’ Deuteronomy XXIV, 16]; in any event, in the matter that one’s prayer be more acceptable to nullify the decree of infertility, this statement stands as stated here”).

So, says the Maharsha, even though it is true that each of us stands or falls based on his own actions, and no one is “objectively guilty” of his parents’ misdeeds, in this particular case of praying for children, it apparently helps if one’s parents were tzaddiqim. A moment’s consideration reveals that the grandparents are often very important and influential in a child’s upbringing, whether for good or, chalila, the opposite. For that reason alone, one can see that the spouse whose parents are also righteous, upright role-models for the children to emulate will have an edge, such that his (or her) t’filloth carry more weight.

C.

Now let us return to our midrash and see if the conversation makes any more sense.
Rachel, it seems, asked Ya’aqov to pray for her in the same manner that his father, Yitzchaq, had done for Rivqa. Ya’aqov replied that his father’s t’filla was more effective than his mother’s for two reasons: First, Yitzchaq also was childless, and second, Yitzchaq was a tzaddiq ben tzaddiq. It would seem evident from the Maharsha that it was for these reasons that Ha-Shem answered his prayer and not hers.

However, comtinued Ya’aqov, in our case, I already have children. Hence, unlike my father, I would not be praying on my own behalf, but for you. In that case, Rachel, your own prayers will be far more effective than mine.

The foregoing also serves to explain why the example of Ya’aqov’s grandfather, Avraham, was also not applicable. Avraham, it is true, continued to pray for Sara even after Yishma’el was born. However, Avraham, ulike his grandson, was a tzaddiq ben rasha, and hence (as the Rosh implies) his t’filloth were more efficacious on behalf of somebody else.

Then, too, Sara, also a tzaddeqeth bath rasha, surely continued to pray for herself. Hence, Ya’aqov’s advice that Rachel do as his grandmother had done, and trust G-d.

D.

This, it seems to me, is a yesod, a fundamental concept in t’filla. It is surely the case that the t’filloth of others on one’s behalf are not wasted -- they serve to support and buttress ones own efforts. But it is not coincidental that the word hithpallél, “to pray” in the Holy Language, is reflexive, that is, the real object of the action is the subject himself, the davener. One must pray for oneself, if the t’filloth of others are to have any effect.

There is a wonderful story told about the Chassidic master known as the Shpoller zeyde. A young couple, the wife pregnant with their first child, came to the zeyde with the request that he pray that their child would be a tzaddiq. The zeyde heard their request, and demanded an exorbitant pidyon, a donation, for the service. The young husband got up and declared that for that kind of money, they would pray for themselves.

Which was exactly what the zeyde wanted to hear, before praying for them.