Parashath Va-Yishlah (Genesis XXXII,4-XXXVI,43) 12/9/12

A.

On returning to the Holy Land, Ya‘aqov is warned of the approach of his evil brother, ‘Ésav. Ya‘aqov prepares to meet ‘Ésav, and brings his family across the River Yabboq.

ויותר יעקב לבדו ויאבק איש עמו עד עלות השחר: וירא כי לא יכל לו וכו' ויאמר שלחני כי עלה השחר ויאמר לא אשלחך כי אם ברכתני: ויאמר אליו מה שמך ויאמר יעקב: ויאמר לא יעקב יאמר עוד שמך כי אם ישראל כי שרית עם אלקים ועם אנשים ותוכל: (“And Ya’aqov was left [va-yivvathér] alone, and a man [ish] struggled with him until the crack of dawn. And [the ish] saw that he could not [best Ya‘aqov].... And [the ish] said, 'Release me, for the dawn has arisen'; and [Ya‘aqov] said, 'I will not release you unless you bless me.' And [the ish] said to him, 'What is your name?' And he said, 'Ya‘aqov.' And [the ish] said, 'Not Ya‘aqov will your name be said any more, but Yisra’él, for you have been exalted [saritha] with G-d and with men and you are able'”; XXXII, 25-29).

The term ish is often used in the Torah to refer to mal’achim (cf. e.g. XVIII, 2). In this particular case, the mal’ach was saro shel ‘Ésav the “guardian” or “guiding” angel of the nation which would arise from ‘Ésav.

A standard rule of Torah exegesis is מכלל לאו אתה שומע הן, that from a negative statement its positive counterpart can be discerned. Hence, from the statement that the mal’ach was unable to defeat Ya‘aqov we deduce that he had expected to do so. This leads us to ask what the point of this struggle was; what was the nature of the mal’ach’s expectation, and what changed his perception?

And then we come to the question of Ya‘aqov’s name. Despite the mal’ach’s pronouncement, both names, Ya‘aqov and Yisra’él, continued to be used, and have remained in use amongst the Jewish people, unlike Avraham, who was told: לא יקרא שמך אברם והי' שמך אברהם וגו' (“Your name will not be called Avram, and your name will be Avraham....”; Genesis XVII, 5), and Hazal tell us הקורא לאברהם אברם עובר בעשה (“Who calls Avraham ‘Avram’ violates a positive commandment”; ברכות י"ג.). If so, why do we not apply the same rule here, and continue to use the name Ya‘aqov?

B.

The nation destined to arise from ‘Ésav, Edom, was ancestral to the Romans, Hazal tell us (cf. e.g. Genesis XXV,23, עבודה זרה י"א. ומגלה ו.); our relationship with ‘Ésav’s descendants, and with those others who came under their sway as the purveyors of what we know as Western civilisation, has been a wild and rocky one, in which they would at times oppose us with fire and sword (as in the two Jewish wars fought by the Romans, the Crusades, and the Holocaust, to name a few), and at others would appeal with sympa-thy and brotherhood to tear great rents in the fabric of Israel through assimilation and conversion, as a study especially of the last two centuries of our history plainly reveals.

Viewed with this in mind, the entire account of Ya‘aqov’s fateful final encounter with ‘Ésav and his sar assumes the dimensions of a cosmic battle, waged both in the physical, temporal realm, and in the metaphysical, atemporal realm.

Thus, as ‘Ésav’s forces drew near, Ya‘aqov split his camp in anticipation of trouble, say-ing: אם יבוא עשו אל המחנה האחת ןהכהו והי' המחנה הנשאר לפליטה (“If ‘Ésav comes to the one camp and strikes it, the remaining camp [ha-mahane ha-nish’ar] will become a refuge”; XXXII, 9). Ramban sees this as a paradigm for Israel’s survival amongst ‘Ésav’s physical and spiritual descendants, that as we are driven from one country, some haven always opens up elsewhere for the survivors. For instance, the Jews driven from Spain in 1492 found succor in the Ottoman Empire and, in much smaller numbers, in the Netherlands. The shë’arith ha-pëleita, the surviving remnant of the great Jewish centers of Central and Eastern Europe at the end of the last war, found safe havens primarily in Eretz Yisra’él and the Americas, as well as other places.

This sort of long view of the encounter informs Ya‘aqov’s struggle with ‘Ésav’s sar as well. The great rosh yëshiva Rabbi Elhanan Bunim Wasserman הי"ד, in his work ‘Iqvëtha di-Mshiha, states in the Gr”a’s name that Ya‘aqov’s placing of השפיות ואת ילדיהן ראשונה ואת לאה ואת ילדי' אחרונים ואת רחל ואת יוסף אחרונים (“the servants [i.e., Bilha and Zilpa] and their children first, and Lé’a and her children last, and Rahél and Yoséf last”; XXXIII, 2) as he confronted ‘Ésav, reflects the time immediately before the arrival of Israel’s Anointed King: The Jewish leadership of that day will be descendants of the ‘erev rav, the “mixed multitude” who accompanied the bënei Yisra’él on the Exodus from Egypt (cf. Exodus XII, 38), which finds allusion in the servants and their sons; the bulk of the Jews (Lé’a and her children) of the time will run after them; and last in rank or importance in that day will be the talmidei hachamim, the Torah scholars (Rahél and Yoséf).

As I have noted several times before, there are two words in the Holy Language translatable as “remaining,” nish’ar and nothar. The difference between them can be discerned from their usage. For example, we read concerning the qorban minha, the grain offering, that a portion was burnt up up on the altar, והנותרת מן המנחה לאהרן ולבניו קדש קדשים מאשי ד' (“and what remains [vëha-nothereth] of the minha is for Aharon and his sons, a holy of holies of Ha-Shem’s burnt offerings”; Leviticus II, 3), whence we discern that nothar refers to the remnant of a previous whole which yet possesses the quality (in this case, sanctity) of the original. On the other hand, the Torah tells us concerning ‘édim zomëmim, false witnesses who perjure themselves to convict an innocent man, that they should receive the sentence they would have inflicted on their victim, והנשארים ישמעו ויראו ולא יוסיפו לעשות עוד כדבר הרע הזה (“and the rest [vëha-nish’arim] will hear and be afraid and will not continue to act according to this evil thing”; Deuteronomy XIX, 20), where plainly those left behind who have witnessed the fate of the ‘édim zomëmim do not share their guilt, but are separate and apart from them. Where notharim partake of the quality of the antecedent, nish’arim are totally divorced from it.

So when Ya‘aqov split his camp, calling the two halves ha-mahane ha-ahath and ha-mahane ha-nish’ar, implying their complete separation one from the other, saro shel ‘Ésav perceived that the Jewish people would be hopelessly divided in the generation preceding the advent of the Anointed King, and that most of them, profoundly alienated from their forebears’ Torah tradition, embodied in the talmidei hachamim, would thus follow the ‘erev rav; hence, he had every expectation of ultimate victory.

C.

Va-yivvathér Ya‘aqov lëvaddo.... Ya‘aqov realized what was afoot; the verb va-yivva-thér is from the root of nothar. Ya‘aqov strove that the spiritual DNA of his descendants should be rooted in the strength and determination of the Patriarchs who stood “alone” against the world around them; hence, Bil‘am’s prophetic observation of Israel: הן עם לבדד ישכן ובגוים לא יתחשב (“Behold, a people dwells alone [lë-vadad], and among the nations is not counted”; Numbers XXIII, 9), apart from the nations and from the ‘erev rav, who are vulnerable to the nations’ blandishments, so that even though matters would deteriorate greatly by that time, וחכמת סופרים תסרח ויראי חטא ימאסו (“and the wisdom of the Scribes will become malodorous, and those who fear sin will be despised”; סוטה מ"ט: במשנה), still each individual of Israel would yet possess the power to remain connected to the golden chain of the Torah tradition, to see himself as a nothar, rather than a nish’ar, if he would but will it.

D.

Which brings us to Ya‘aqov’s name-change. When the mal’ach realised that he could not best Ya‘aqov, he demanded to be released; Ya‘aqov refused, unless the mal’ach would bless him. The mal’ach responded by pronouncing his name to be Yisra’él. This in itself requires explication since, as Rashi comments on XVIII, 2, following the mid-rash, אין מלאך אחד עושה שתי שליחות, no one mal’ach performs two missions. If the purpose of saro shel ‘Ésav was to defeat Ya‘aqov and secure ultimate victory for his protégé, what bëracha could Ya‘aqov expect from him?

The Zohar makes plain (עיי' למשל ח"א ק"ע.), saro shel ‘Ésav is the yétzer ha-ra‘, the inclination toward destructive behavior present in us all. His job is, as it were, to proctor an exam, and he performs the task well and with great zeal. He fights to win, knowing full well that we possess the capacity to defeat him and, like the proctor of any other exam, is delighted when we pass. Thus, the mal’ach’s bëracha was that, through his koah of hiv-vathruth, his ability to stand apart whilst remaining connected to the sacred chain which stretched through his father to his grandfather Avraham, he would be exalted, yisra, endeared to G-d, respected by men, for he, and his descendants, would be able.

G-d Himself provides testimony that, this name-change was not intended to eclipse Ya’a-qov’s former name, as happened with Avraham and Sara, but rather to complement it: ויאמר אלקים לישראל במראת הלילה ויאמר יעקב יעקב ויאמר הנני (“And G-d spoke to Yisra’él in the night-visions and said, Ya‘aqov, Ya‘aqov! And he said: Here I am”; Genesis XLVI, 2).

Bearing this in mind, we note that the Torah Tëmima, commenting on XXXV, 10, cites the Talmud Yërushalmi (סנהדרין פ"ב ה"ו) to explain the difference between Avraham and Sara, and Ya‘aqov/Yisra’él: שהיו"ד מן שם שרי צירף הקב"ה לשם יהושע בן נון ןלפי"ז באברהם לא נעקר כל אות בשנוי שמו אלא אדרבה עוד נוסף לו אות ובשרי נתפס היו"ד בשם אחר ולכן אין קפידא אם בטלו השמות הקודמים משא"כ יעקב אם יבטלו ישתקע כולו וגו' (“For the yud of the name Sarai the Holy One, Blessed is He added to the name Yëhoshua‘ bin Nun [cf. Numbers XIII, 16]; and according to this, no letter was uprooted in changing Avraham’s name, but on the contrary, a letter was added to it, and with Sarai, the yud was attached to a different name, and therefore there is no concern about abolishing the previous names [since no letters were lost], which would not be the case with Ya‘aqov, had it been abolished, it would have been entirely lost....”).

Maharal mi-Prag remarks that the two names mark of a dual level of qëdusha, the one of pure Torah, and the other of its execution in this world, the mitzvoth (עיי' תפארת ישראל פל"ז ), through which we exercise power over it. As with everything else in Creation, these twin sanctities find intrinsic expression in the letters composing both names.

We need the qëdushoth inherent in both names to wage and win our struggle with ‘Ésav, internally and externally, to ensure that notharim of faithful Israel will yet greet ha-melech ha-mashiah.

Parshath Va-Yishlah (Genesis XXXII,4-XXXVI,43) 11/19/10

A.

As our parasha opens, Ya‘aqov has returned to Eretz Yisra’él where he knows that he must find a way to deal with his brother, ‘Ésav, if he is to live in peace. Well aware both of his brother’s enmity and his destructive capacity, Ya‘aqov prepares for the encounter: First, he splits his camp in half: ויאמר אם יבוא עשו אל המחנה האחת והכהו והי' המחנה הנשאר לפליטה (“And he said, 'If ‘Ésav comes to the one camp and strikes it, the remaining camp [ha-mahane ha-nish’ar] will become a refuge'”; XXXII, 9). He then prays G-d, begging for deliverance for his brother, and prepares a sumptuous gift to bribe him. All of this done, he brings his family across the River Yabboq.
ויותר יעקב לבדו ויאבק איש עמו עד עלות השחר: וירא כי לא יכול לו וגו' (“And Ya‘aqov remained [va-yivvathér] alone, and a man [in actuality a mal’ach] struggled with him until the crack of dawn. And [the mal’ach] saw that he could not best [Ya‘aqov]....”; ibid., 25-26). The words transliterated, the participle nish’ar and the verb va-yivvathér (participle nothar), as we see, can both be translated “remain,” though their roots are quite different, shin-alef-réysh in the first case and yud-tav-réysh in the second. Both appear in our parasha. What is the difference between them, and what can we learn from it?

B.

In a now-famous dërasha delivered to Jewish refugees in London shortly after the Second World War, the Ponovezher rosh yëshiva, Rabbi Yoséf Kahaneman זצ"ל, cried out: “We are notharim!”, going on to explain that he and they had all been slated for immolation, the same as the six million qëdoshim who had perished in the maelstrom, and were spared only bë-hasdei Ha-Shem for His holy purposes. As the qëdoshim died ‘al qiddush Ha-Shem, so must the notharim live ‘al qiddush Ha-Shem.

Rabbi Kahaneman derived this definition of notharim from Rashi’s comment on Leviticus X, 12: וידבר משה אל אהרן ואל אלעזר ואל איתמר בניו הנותרים (“And Moshe spoke to Aharon and to El‘azar and Ithamar, his remaining sons [banav ha-notharim]”), הנותרים מן המיתה מלמד שאף עליהם נקנסה מיתה כו' ותפלת משה בטלה מחצה (“who were notharim from death, teaching that death had been decreed on them, too... and Moshe’s tëfilla had nullified half [the sentence]”; מקורו ביומא פ"ז. עיי"ש). From this, we see that a nothar is a remnant of an original which still partakes of or embodies the essence of the original. Similarly, the term nothar is used of remnants of sacrifices, which are as holy as the original sacrifices had been (cf., e.g., Leviticus II, 3; VI, 9; multa inter alia.)

The distinction between nothar and nish’ar becomes clearer when we contrast the above-cited references with, e.g., Deuteronomy XIX, 20, where we read that false witnesses (‘édim zomëmim) in a capital case are to be put to death, והנשארים ישמעו ויראו ולא יוסיפו לעשות כדבר הרע הזה (“...and those remaining [ha-nish’arim] will hear and see and will not continue to act according to this evil thing”). Here, plainly, those nish’arim are not under the sentence of death; indeed, they are not ‘édim at all, but simply the rest of the crowd who had witnessed the trial and execution.

If we now return to our first verse, we see that this is precisely so: If the first camp was attacked, then ha-mahane ha-nish’ar would clearly not be in the same category, and would be able to escape and serve as a refuge.

Thence we pass to the account of Ya‘aqov’s fight with the mal’ach; we note that Scripture testifies ki lo’ yachol lo, that the mal’ach could not overcome Ya‘aqov. Applying the well known rule of Talmudic logic that מכלל לאו אתה שומע הן, that from a negative statement its positive counterpart can be deduced, we understand that, when the mal’ach began the fight, he thought that he could defeat Ya‘aqov. If so, what changed?

Va-yivvathér Ya‘aqov lë-vaddo... Ya‘aqov reached deep within himself, and drew on the strength of his grandfather Avraham, who was known as Avraham ha-‘Ivri, because he had the strength and moral courage to stand with G-d on one side [‘éver] whilst all the world stood on the other (בראשית רבה פמ"ב סי' י"ג); in short, to be alone; and also on the sanctity of his father Yitzhaq, induced at the ‘aqéda where he became a perfect sacrifice, too holy to leave the Holy Land (Genesis XXVI, 2, Rashi ad loc.). Ya‘aqov, then, was a nothar, imbued with Patriarchal strength.The resulting yitharon (“advantage, abundance” from the same root as nothar) enabled him to frustrate the mal’ach.

C.

We are now in the month of Kislev, in which Hannukka falls, the celebration of the miracle of the single remaining can of pure olive oil, found when the Holy Temple was retaken by the Hashmona’im from Israel’s Greco-Roman oppressors, and which burnt in the mënora for eight days, until such time as fresh oil could be pressed and brought to the Holy Temple. The miracle is, of course, commemorated by kindling lights all eight days.

The Béyth Yoséf asks a famous question concerning this practice: ואיכא למידק למה קבעו ח' ימים דכיון דשמן שבפך הזה בו כדי להדליק לילה א' נמצא שלא נעשה הנס אלא בז' הלילות וגו' (“And one must analyze why [the rabbis] fixed eight days, for since there was enough oil in this can to kindle the mënora for one night, it comes out that the miracle was only performed over seven nights....”; טור או"ח תר"ע ד"ה והטעם).

The Përi Hadash analyzes many proposed answers to this question, and concludes שאין סברא שיקבעו ז' ימים מכ"ו כסליו ואילך ועקר יום הנצחון שנחו מאויביהם שהוא כ"ה לכסליו שלא יקבעוהו לדורו' ואלולי נס של שמן היו קובעין לדורו' יום אחד יו"ט בהלל ובהודא' אלא שבשביל נס פך של שמן קבעו ח' ימים לדורו' (“that it is not a [tenable] theory that the [rabbis] would fix seven days from 26 Kislev onward, when they would not fix the essential day of victory on which they rested from their enemies was 25 Kislev, for [future] generations; had it not been for the miracle of the oil, they would have fixed for the generations a single day, a holiday of praise and thanksgiving, but because of the miracle of the can of oil, they fixed eight days for the generations”).

In other words, the rabbis’ first thought was that the date of the miraculous victory over the far more numerous, better trained, and better equipped Seleucid forces be established as a holiday, but when they beheld the miracle which followed immediately thereon, they were moved to include those days, too. This thesis has much to commend it, not least that the ‘Al ha-Nissim recited during Hannukka appears to focus entirely on the victory, when רבת את ריבם דנת את דינם נקמת את נקמתם מסרת גבורים ביד חלשים ורבים ביד מעטים וגו' (“You fought their fight, You judged their judgment, You avenged their vengeance, You handed over the mighty into the hand of the weak, and the many into the hand of the few”). However, if we grant this thesis, another question presents itself: We kindle lights on Hannukka in memory of the miracle of the oil (indeed, the prevailing custom is to burn olive oil); why did the rabbis decide to establish a light in commemoration of the victory?

The clue, it seems to me, is also to be found in the ‘Al ha-Nissim, which tells us that the Hashmona’im embarked on the conflict כשעמדה מלכות יון הרשעה על עמך ישראל להשכיחם תורתך ולהעבירם מחקי רצונך (“when the evil Greek kingdom stood against Your people Israel to maker them forget Your Torah and distance them from the laws of Your will”).

The Jewish people had no quarrel with the Greek government per se; there had been no similar revolt against the regime of the Medio-Persians whom the Greeks had conquered and supplanted, nor against their Babylonian predecessors; it was when the Greeks attempted to impose their culture on Israel, to wrest the Jews from their sacred heritage, that the flag of revolt was raised, and success remembered with a light, כי נר מצוה ותורה אור (“for a mitzva is a lamp, and Torah, light”; Proverbs VI, 23).

Torah is also compared to pure olive oil (עיי' למשל דברים רבה פ"ז סי' ג' ושיר השירים רבה פ"א סי' י"ט), the fuel which produces a clear, clean light; so an olive-oil lamp is the ideal remembrance of this victory in the cause of Torah.

D.

The Shla”h ha-qadosh writes (פרשת וישב שצ"ז.) that there is an organic connection between the parashoth and the seasons in which they are read. It is in this comparison of Torah and olive oil, I believe, that the link between our parasha and the season may be found.

If we examine the penultimate verse of Ma‘oz Tzur, sung after kindling the Hannukka lights, we find: הו יונים נקבצו עלי/אזי בימי חשמונאים/ופרצו את חומות מגדלי/וטמאו את כל השמנים/ומנותר קנקנים/ נעשה נס לשושנים/בני בינה ימי שמונה/ קבעו שיר ורננים (“O, Greeks gathered against me/Then, in the days of the Hashmona’im/And breached the walls of my towers/and defiled all the oil/And from the nothar of the cans/Was made a miracle for the Shoshanim/Sons of discernment fixed eight days/of song and rejoicing”).

It has been this quality of notharuth (if I may be so bold as to coin a word), of being a surviving remnant of Patriarchal strength and sanctity with which Ya‘aqov imbued his children, and they their children, until this very day, which enables Israel, through all the generations, to endure and stand tall for Torah, כשושנה בין החוחים (“Like a lily [shoshana] amongst the thorns”; Song of Songs II, 2), which Rashi explains to mean חוחים שמנקבין אותה ותמיד היא עומדת בנוי' ואדנינותה (“Thorns which pierce her, and yet she always stands in her splendor and color”).

Because we, like our father Ya‘aqov, are notharim.

Parshath Va-Yishlach (Genesis XXXIIM4-XXXVI,43) 12/12/08

A.

Our parasha tells the story of Ya‘aqov’s lonely nighttime struggle with a mal’ach on the banks of the river Yabboq. Rashi, following the midrash, identifies Ya‘aqov’s adversary as שרו של עשו, the “directing angel” of ‘Esav, as it were.

They fought throughout the night, and as dawn was about to break, the mal’ach cried out: שלחני כי עלה השחר ויאמר לא אשלחך כי אם ברכתני (”Release me, for the dawn has arisen; and [Ya‘aqov] said, I shall not release you unless you bless me”; XXXII, 27). Here, Rashi tells us that Ya‘aqov meantהודה לי על הברכות שברכני אבי שעשו מערער עליהם : (“Concede to me concerning the brachoth with which my father blessed me, for ‘Esav [still] objects to them”).

So here is the question: What did Ya‘aqov see, after all his years in exile, that led him to believe that ‘Esav through his mal’ach might actually concede to him those brachoth which Yitzchaq had bestowed on Ya‘aqov, thinking that he was ‘Esav?

B.

In a comment on the first verse in next week’s parasha, Rashi offers a striking metaphor concerning הפשתני הזה נכנסו גמליו טעונים פשתן הפחמי תמה אנה כל הפשתן הזה? הי' פיקח אחד משיב לו ניצוץ אחד יוצא ממפוח שלך ששורף את כולו. כך יעקב ראה כל האלופים הכתובים למעלה תמה ואמר מי יכול לכבוש כולן? מה כתיב למטה? "אלה תולדות יעקב יוסף" וכתיב "והי' בית יעקב אש ובית יוסף להבה ובית עשו לקש" ניצוץ יוצא מיוסף שמכלה ושורף את כולם (“A certain flax merchant’s camels enter [the market] laden with flax; the blacksmith is surprised: Whither all of this flax? A certain wit answered him: A single spark from your bellows will burn it all up! Thus did Ya‘aqov see all of the chiefs [of ‘Esav] written above [i.e., XXXVI, 1-43] and was surprised [and] said, Who is able to overcome all these? What is written below? ‘These are the descendants of Ya‘aqov, Yosef....’[XXXVII, 2, and it is written “And the house of Ya‘aqov will be fire, and the house of Yosef a flame and the house of ‘Esav will become straw” [Obadiah I, 18]; a spark coming out of Yosef eliminates and burns them all up”).

The midrash explicitly connects Yosef’s birth to the struggle with the mal’ach: "ויגע בכף ירכו" זה יוסף שהוא עיקר יוצאי ירכו (“‘And [the mal’ach] touched [Ya‘aqov’s] inner loin’ [v. 26], this is Yosef, who was the major fruit of his loin”; ילקוט ראובני, פרשתנו ). What is the point of this connection?

The holy Or ha-Chayyim, discusses why Yitzchaq had been so determined that ‘Esav should receive his brachoth; surely however blind he had been, both literally and figuratively through ‘Esav’s deceptions, he was nonetheless able to see the vast difference in quality between his two sons? He answers: כי חשב שבאמצעות הברכות יתהפך למידת הטוב ויטיב דרכיו כו' ואפשר שהי' מועיל ותמצא שאמרו ז"ל שנענש יעקב שמנע דינה מעשו שאפשר שהיתה מחזרתו למוטב הרי שאפשר לו לחזור למוטב (“that he thought that by means of the brachoth [‘Esav] might turn to the good and improve his ways.... And it was possible that it might be effective, for you will find that Chazal said that Ya‘aqov was punished for withholding Dina from ‘Esav, for it was possible that she would return him to the good, so [we see] that it was possible for him to return to the good”; תולדות כ"ז א' ד"ה בנו).

If we turn next to the Talmud, we shall find the next piece of the puzzle in the form of a famous dispute: א"ר חייא בר אבא א"ר יוחנן כל הנביאים כולן לא נתנבאו אלא לבעלי תשובה, אבל צדיקים גמורים, "עין לא ראתה אלקים זולתך". ופליגא דא"ר אבהו מקום שבעלי תשובה עומדין צדיקים גמורים אינם עומדין וגו' (“Said Rabbi Chiyya bar Abba, said Rabbi Yochanan: 'All of the prophets prophesied only for ba‘alei t’shuva, but complete tzaddiqim? "No eye has seen, G-d, apart from You" [Isaiah LXIV, 3; i.e., nothing is revealed to the prophets concerning tzaddiqim -- Rashi],' and there is a disputant, since Rabbi Abbahu said, '[In the] place where ba’alei t’shuva stand complete tzaddiqim do not stand'”; ברכות ל"ד: וע"ע סנהדרין צ"ט.).

In other words, Rabbi Yochanan appears to hold that tzaddiqim gmurim, those who have never had occasion to repent because they have never committed an actual transgression against one of the mitzvoth and hence never had to be addressed by the prophets, are superior in standing to ba‘alei t’shuva, whose shortcomings had been the subject of prophetic revelation and rebuke; whilst Rabbi Abbahu appears to hold that ba‘alei t’shuva, those who have fallen into error but managed to claw themselves up from the depths once again, have the superior status. Rabbi Abbahu, then, would be sympathetic to Yitzchaq’s view of ‘Esav’s potential, should it only be realised; Rabbi Yochanan, on the other hand, would see Ya‘aqov’s superiority as unquestioned.

C.

Reference to an additional Talmudic quotation will help clarify why this should matter. שופרי' דר' אבהו מעין שופרי' דיעקב אבינו (“The splendor/beauty [shufra] of Rabbi Abbahu is derived from the shufra of Ya ‘aqov avinu”), and שופרי' דר' יוחנן מעין שופרי' דיוסף (“Rabbi Yochanan’s shufra was derived from the shufra of Yosef”; בבא מציעא פ"ד.).

This is not a reference to some Talmudic beauty pageant. The sfarim ha-qdoshim (עיי' למשל ספר צדקת הצדיק סי' קי"ז) make clear that the Aramaic word shufra is referring to the beauty of their approach and method in Torah, since חכמת אדם תאיר פניו (“a person’s wisdom illumines his face”). As my lovely wife is wont to say of people she approves of, they are “beautiful inside and out,” that is, the beauty of their thoughts and qualities informs and radiates through their countenances.

The Maharal mi-Prag notes in his Netzach Yisra’él that whenever the Talmud records a dispute between Tanna’im or Amora’im, the dispute is deeper than the surface of the matter under discussion, and is traceable to the core formulation of each one’s knowledge and method, the way in which the Torah tradition was specifically imparted to each individual and how he interacts with it (פנ"א ד"ה ופליג בה, וע"ע דרך החיים למהר"ל פ"א מט"ו). Thus, Rabbi Abbahu’s reasoning can be traced to Ya‘aqov, whilst Rabbi Yochanan’s approach is that of Yosef.

D.

Now we can put this together.

We may conclude that down through all the years of Ya‘aqov’s enforced exile from his homeland and his sojourn with Lavan, שרו של עשן, ‘Esav’s personal mal’ach, was able to justify ‘Esav’s grudge and refusal to concede the matter of the brachoth, on the grounds that he might some day do t’shuva, at which point he would truly merit the brachoth that Yitzchaq had wanted to bestow on him. Rabbi Abbahu’s opinion concerning the superiority of ba‘alei t’shuva implies that Ya‘aqov himself did not argue with the implications of such a likelihood; he would accept the validity of the mal’ach’s reasoning.

However, with the birth of Yosef, the originator of Rabbi Yochanan’s appraoch came into the world, and he held that, no matter what ‘Esav might do, the right to the brachoth of a tzaddiq gamur would always carry more weight than that of a ba‘al t’shuva. Yosef, as the midrash cited supra notes, was the ‘iqqar, the “root” or “main focus” of the bnei Yisra’él, a status to which we find allusion in the Torah, which calls Yosef a בן זקנים (XXXVII, 3), which Onqelos renders בר חכים, “wise son.” As heirs to their father’s brachoth, they would never give them up to ‘Esav, even if he would repent completely of all that he had done. The mal’ach was forced to give in on the point, as Rashi explains.

B’siyya‘ta di-Shmayya, I believe that we can find an allusion to Rashi’s point on another level, too. In Talmudic literature, Rabbi Yochanan often bears the surname bar Nappacha, or “son of the blacksmith” (עיי' למשל סנהדרין צ"ו., בבא מציעא פ"ה:, וכתובות כ"ה:). Rashi tells us that his father was, indeed, a blacksmith, but then adds: ואית דמפרשי בר נפחט על שם יופיו (“and there are those who explain bar nappacha with reference to his beauty”; סנהדרין שם, רש"י ד"ה טבא).

To say the least, the remark is cryptic; our first consideration of male beauty is not usually to think of a blacksmith. However, if we think of the Hebrew word yofi, Rashi uses here in the same way as we have come to consider the Aramaic shufra, and consider the etymological relationship of nappacha to the Hebrew word for “bellows,” mappuach, which Rashi uses in his comment supra, perhaps we can discern in this surname an indirect reference to the “spark” or “flame” of Yosef’s way in Torah, which had spread to Rabbi Yochanan, and which he himself, in his rôle as rosh yeshiva, was dedicated to propagating amongst his talmidim.

Parshath Va-Yishlach (Genesis XXXII,4-XXXVI,43) 11/22/07

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.