PARASHAT VAYEITZEI

By Rav David Silverberg

            Parashat Vayeitzei tells the story of Yaakov’s experiences in the house of Lavan, his father-in-law and employer, and his ultimate escape from Lavan’s service.  Rav Matis Blum, in his work Torah La-da’at – Ba-kodesh Chazitikha, notes a number of intriguing parallels between this episode and the story of the Exodus from Egypt.  For one thing, as noted already by the Ba’al Ha-turim, the Torah’s description of Yaakov’s escape – “ki varach” (31:22) – appears only in one other instance in the Torah, in the context of Benei Yisrael’s departure from Egypt (Shemot 14:5).  Moreover, Lavan learns of Yaakov’s escape on the third day after he left (31:22), and, at least according to the plain reading of the narrative, he caught up to Yaakov on the seventh day (“derekh shiv’at yamim” – 31:23).  This brings to mind Pharaoh’s pursuit of Benei Yisrael, which, according to Midrashic tradition, began on the third day after the Exodus and culminated with the splitting of the Yam Suf on the seventh day.  Additionally, Yaakov’s escape route led him across a river (31:21), which might parallel his descendants’ crossing of the sea after the Exodus.

Rav Blum even finds a halakhic parallel of sorts between these two escapes.  Yaakov and Lavan ultimately make a pact promising that neither party will cross the designated boundary at Gilead to harm the other (31:52).  Rashi comments that this agreement came with a provision allowing the parties to cross the boundary for commercial purposes.  This brings to mind the prohibition against Benei Yisrael’s return to Egypt, regarding which an exception is made for commercial trips (see Rambam, Hilkhot Melakhim 5:8).

We might add that Rachel’s seizing of Lavan’s terafim (idolatrous articles – 31:19) perhaps correspond with the destruction the Almighty brought upon the idols of Egypt on the night of the Exodus (Bamidbar 33:4).  In both instances, not only was the oppressor defeated, but his pagan beliefs were discredited and put to shame, as well.

These parallels reinforce the notion of Yaakov’s tribulations serving as a model and precursor of his descendants’ future experiences in exile.  His travails and eventual return to Canaan demonstrate to Benei Yisrael the temporary nature of exile.  It reminds us that despite how geographically far we are driven from our homeland, the possibility of return always remains.  The grueling hardships and national isolation Am Yisrael experiences in exile ultimately come to end, as the nation, like Yaakov, eventually escape from their oppressors and return to their homeland.

******

            Toward the beginning of Parashat Vayeitzei, we read of Yaakov’s famous dream which he beheld as he slept along the way to Charan.  Yaakov saw a vision of angels ascending and descending a ladder that extended to the heavens, and heard God speak to him and make a number of promises, including offspring, his descendants’ possession of Eretz Yisrael, and personal protection.

            Commenting on this vision, the Gemara in Masekhet Chulin (91b) writes that the angels in Yaakov’s dream ascended to the heavens, where they beheld Yaakov’s heavenly “image.”  They then returned to earth, and looked upon Yaakov’s earthly appearance, at which point they sought to cause him harm.  God immediately intervened to protect Yaakov from these potentially destructive angels.

            The Yalkut Eliezer explains this dream as symbolic of the constant and complex pendulum that a righteous person rides in his quest for spiritual greatness.  The realities of human life require the tzadik to vacillate between his “heavenly” and “earthly” images.  The angels in Yaakov’s dream represent Yaakov himself, his ongoing ascent to and descent from his heavenly image, the spiritual ideal which he seeks.  As a human being, the tzadik, too, must frequently “descend” to tend to his more mundane needs, to care for his physical well-being and secure a livelihood.  But whereas most of us position ourselves permanently in the ground, and only make occasional visits to the heavens, the angels of the righteous are in constant motion, ascending back to the heavens the moment they have completed their responsibilities to their “earthly image.”

            The angels’ efforts to harm Yaakov, the Yalkut Eliezer explains, symbolize the difficulty entailed in a life characterized by “ascending and descending.”  It would be far simpler to just remain in the heavens without ever “descending” to the world of mundane life.  The frequent descents could potentially harm the tzadikim and sabotage their efforts to achieve greatness.  However, as in Yaakov’s dream, God stands by the sincerely righteous and protects them from the spiritual dangers that lurk at the foot of the ladder, and the temptation to remain there rather than returning heavenward.  He ensures that the “descent” does not undermine the tzadik’s efforts to constantly rise to greater heights, and that the time invested tending to the “earthly image” will only lead to a more refined “heavenly image,” and extend the ladder higher and higher into the heavens.

*******

            Rashi, in his commentary to Parashat Vayeitzei (28:11), cites the famous comment in the Gemara (Chulin 91b) concerning the stone upon which Yaakov slept as he made his way to Charan.  The Gemara tells that Yaakov collected a number of rocks upon which to sleep, but the stones began quarreling with one another, each demanding the privilege of having Yaakov rest his head directly upon it.  Ultimately, the rocks merged together into a single stone, such that Yaakov’s head effectively rested upon all the stones.

            What message might this image of the merging stones seek to convey?

            One possibility, perhaps, is that Chazal here express one of the important functions of religious leadership, namely, to settle disputes and maintain peace and harmony among the constituents.  The image of the quarreling rocks under Yaakov’s head may perhaps allude to the strife and controversy that has often plagued our communities and institutions.  The effective leader is capable of diffusing controversy and unifying those under his charge into a cohesive group.  Instead of each individual vying for personal prominence, they all, under the influence and guidance of the leader, join together to form a single – albeit complex and multifaceted – community.  (See Rav Dov Weinberger’s Shemen Ha-tov, which explains along similar lines.)

Later, Yaakov arrives at a well outside Charan where he encounters three herds of sheep with their shepherds.  The shepherds explained to Yaakov that they were waiting for all the herds to assemble so that the shepherds can together remove the large stone that covered the well; until all the shepherds gathered, they were unable to push the stone off the mouth of the well.  The Ramban (29:2-3) cites a passage in the Midrash which explains this episode as symbolic of aliya le-regel, the nationwide pilgrimage to the Beit Ha-mikdash on Pesach, Shavuot and Sukkot.  The three herds represent the three pilgrimage festivals, and the well is symbolic of the Temple, which gave forth the life-giving waters of sanctity and spirituality.  We might add that the well was capable of giving forth this water only when all the shepherds assembled together and joined efforts to access the water.  One of the roles of the Beit Ha-mikdash – like the role of religious leaders – is to unify the people and bring all members of the nation together in the service of the Almighty.  It required that all the various segments of the population work together to access its “water,” the kedusha and inspiration that the Temple was intended to provide.  Indeed, once the Mikdash ceased functioning as a unifying force, and became instead a source of contention and envy, it was taken from the Jewish people.  Its restoration thus depends upon the efforts of all the “herds” to gather together in peace and unity, to put our differences aside and work together in a sincere desire to once again access the sacred “waters” of the Shekhina.

*******

            A famous passage in Masekhet Berakhot (26b) establishes (according to one view) that Yaakov instituted the nightly arvit prayer service, as he made his way from Be’er Sheva to Charan to flee from his brother.  The Torah in Parashat Vayeitze (28:11) relates that as Yaakov traveled, “He came upon a place and slept there” (“Va-yifga ba-makom va-yalen sham”).  The Gemara demonstrates that the verb p.g.a. can also refer to prayer, such that this verse may be understood to mean that Yaakov prayed before sleeping.

            Tosefot question the Gemara’s comments in light of a different Talmudic passage, in Masekhet Chulin (91b).  The Gemara there interprets the opening verses of Parashat Vayetze to mean that Yaakov traveled to Charan twice.  When Yaakov first arrived in Charan, he realized that he had passed by the site of the future Mikdash, where his father and grandfather had prayed, and he felt that he, too, should pray at that site.   He therefore returned to the site of the Mikdash and prayed there, as indicated by the phrase “va-yifga ba-makom.”  Yaakov then prepared to return to Charan, but God had the sun set early so that Yaakov would sleep at this holy site.

            As Tosefot note, it emerges clearly from this description of the events that Yaakov prayed during the daytime, before sundown.  How, then could the Gemara infer from this episode that Yaakov established the nighttime arvit service?

Tosefot answer by concluding that this Gemara perhaps presumes the position of Rabbi Yehuda, cited in the Mishna (Berakhot 4:1), that the time for arvit begins before sundown, at the point of pelag ha-mincha.  Whereas the majority position maintains that the halakhic day ends at sundown, such that one may recite mincha until sunset and at that point the time for arvit begins, Rabbi Yehuda holds that the day ends at pelag ha-mincha.  Tosefot thus suggest that the Gemara’s comment regarding Yaakov instituting arvit reflects Rabbi Yehuda’s position, for, as we saw, he recited this prayer before sundown.  In fact, Tosefot view this Gemara as evidence that Halakha follows Rabbi Yehuda’s view, according to which one may recite arvit already at pelag ha-mincha.

            The Penei Yehoshua refutes Tosefot’s argument, claiming that Yaakov in fact recited two prayers – mincha and arvit.  Indeed, the Penei Yehoshua writes, the Gemara in Chulin clearly speaks of Yaakov praying before sundown, but the Gemara there refers to his recitation of mincha.  However, when the Torah writes, “va-yifga ba-makom,” it refers to the prayer he recited after God brought nightfall to the region, as indicated by the next clause in the verse: “…he slept there because the sun had set.”  The Penei Yehoshua claims that the phrase “because the sun had set” modifies not only “he slept there,” but also the first segment of the verse – “va-yifga ba-makom” – and thus the Torah refers to the prayer he recited after the sun had set.  The Gemara in Berakhot thus legitimately cites this verse as the source for the premise that Yaakov instituted the arvit service.

            As mentioned earlier, however, the Gemara in Chulin cites the phrase “va-yifga ba-makom” in reference to Yaakov’s pre-dusk prayer, which clearly implies that he prayed only before sundown, and not after.

*******

            Parashat Vayetze tells the story of Yaakov’s experiences in Charan, where he lives for twenty years while escaping the vengeance of his brother.  Yaakov’s life changes drastically upon arriving in Charan.  After having spent his early years as “a simple man, a tent dweller” (25:27), which Chazal explain as a reference to devoted Torah study, Yaakov now spends twenty years begetting and raising children, and amassing a fortune working for his uncle and father-in-law, Lavan.  Yaakov left the world of serene and focused learning, and now finds himself with a large family and an ever growing commercial enterprise.

            When considering this transition in Yaakov’s life which occurs over the course of Parashat Vayetze, it is worth noting the theme of angelic revelation that brackets this parasha.  At the beginning of this parasha, we read of Yaakov’s famous dream of angels ascending and descending a ladder that extended to the heavens.  The parasha concludes with Yaakov’s safe and ultimately peaceful departure from his uncle, whereupon he once again encounters angels: “And Yaakov went along his way, and angels of God came upon him…” (32:1).  Interestingly enough, the story of Yaakov’s experiences in Charan ends the same way it began: with the revelation of angels.

            The Rosh Yeshiva, HaRav Aharon Lichtenstein shelit”a (as recorded by a student – http://vbm-torah.org/archive/sichot67/07-67vayetze.htm), suggested that these two revelations might point to the spiritual consistency Yaakov maintained despite the fundamental changes his life underwent.  Yaakov lived in the world of dreams and ideals during his youthful, bachelor years – and he succeeded in maintaining that idealistic energy and spirit throughout the twenty years he spend as a father of twelve young children and hard-working shepherd.  As Rav Lichtenstein commented:

Nevertheless, even at the end of the parasha, Yaakov has not lost his ability to see angels… Yaakov held onto his dreams even after maturing, marrying and accepting the burden of providing for a family.  He retained his religious personality even in the face of his new life and new responsibilities.  Yaakov Avinu overcame the tremendous challenge of maintaining his ability to dream and maintaining the proper perspective throughout his trials and tribulations.  Therefore, Yaakov met angels when he left Charan.

Rav Lichtenstein added that every Torah Jew must take example from our patriarch and never allow the harsh, complex realities of life dull his spiritual senses and lead him to compromise his idealism and aspirations:

This challenge confronts each of us, as well.  As we accumulate responsibilities, we too must retain our ability to see angels.  Moving towards a more practically-oriented life must not blind our focus on Torah and avodat Hashem… The burdens of providing for one’s family shouldn’t break one’s dreams.

Like Yaakov, every individual must sustain the “dreams” and idealism of youth even while confronting the less-than-ideal realities of adulthood, and ensure that the “angels” remain with him all throughout, at every stage along the journey through life.

******

            The opening section of Parashat Vayetze describes Yaakov’s famous vision in which he beheld angels ascending and descending a ladder that extended from the ground to the heavens.  Rashi comments that Yaakov, who was making his way from Be’er Sheva to his uncle’s home in Charan, saw the protecting angels of Eretz Yisrael returning to the heavens, while the angels assigned over areas outside Eretz Yisrael descended from the heavens.  This vision thus signified the transition from the care of one group of angels to another.

            Of course, the concept of angels accompanying a person and protecting him touches upon the general topic of “angels” in Jewish thought, and what precisely Chazal had in mind when they spoke of these beings.  Without delving into this issue, it is worth noting that the notion of angels accompanying a person to offer protection arises, surprisingly enough, even in a halakhic context, as discussed toward the very beginning of the Shulchan Arukh (O.C. 3:1).  Based on the Gemara’s comment in Masekhet Berakhot (60b), the Shulchan Arukh mentions that before one uses the restroom, he should declare, “Be honored, O sacred honored ones, ministers of the Supreme One!  Protect me, protect me; assist me, assist me; wait for me until I enter and leave, for this is the way of human beings.”  As Rashi explains in his commentary to the Gemara, this declaration of “Hitkabedu mekhubadim” is addressed to the angels that accompany a person at all times to protect him.  The angels do not enter the restroom, and therefore the individual must ask that they wait for him while he performs his bodily functions, and offer protection from outside the restroom.

            After codifying this halakha, the Shulchan Arukh adds, “But now we are not accustomed to reciting it.”  The Mishna Berura explains (based on Rav Yosef Karo’s own comments in Beit Yosef), “…because we are not presumed to be God-fearing [to the extent that] angels accompany us, such that we should ask them to wait for us until we leave.”  This recitation is built on the assumption that angels accompany a person, thus necessitating a special request that they wait outside as he uses the restroom.  Nowadays, we cannot assume that we are worthy of angelic protection, and we therefore no longer recite this declaration before using the restroom.  (See Sha’arei Teshuva who cites some authorities who require reciting it even nowadays, but suggests that these sources refer only to the exceptionally pious.)

            Some Acharonim raised the question of whether this custom not to recite “Hitkabedu mekhubadim” might perhaps conflict with the widespread custom to welcome the accompanying angels on the night of Shabbat, through the singing of “Shalom Aleikhem.”  This practice is based upon the Gemara’s comment in Masekhet Shabbat (119b) that two special angels accompany a person home from the synagogue on Shabbat eve.  If we sing “Shalom Aleikhem” to greet the angels, then apparently we are, indeed, worthy of angelic accompaniment, even nowadays.  How might we reconcile this practice with the custom not to recite “Hitkabedu mekhubadim” before using the restroom?  Indeed, it is reported that the Chatam Sofer did not recite “Shalom Aleikhem” for this reason.

            Others, however, distinguished between the notion of angels accompanying a person on leil Shabbat and the recitation of “Hitkabedu mekhubadim” before using the restroom.  The Arukh Ha-shulchan suggested that we do, in fact, accept the concept of angelic accompaniment even nowadays.  Nevertheless, we refrain from reciting “Hitkabedu mekhubadim” because we do not presume to be on the level where we can make requests of our accompanying angels, such as asking them to wait while we use the restroom.  The Ben Ish Chai, in his work Od Yosef Chai (Parashat Vayera), explains differently, distinguishing between the various roles served by angels.  We refrain from reciting “Hitkabedu mekhubadim” because we do not presume we are worthy of protective angels.  On Shabbat eve, however, angels accompany us to give honor to Shabbat (the Ben Ish Chai mentions here specifically the special mitzva of kiddush), and not for personal protection.  Thus, even though we do not recite “Hitkabedu mekhubadim,” we nevertheless welcome angels into our home on Shabbat eve, as they have come to give honor to the sacred occasion of Shabbat.

******

            Parashat Vayetze tells of the birth of Yaakov’s children (with the exception of Binyamin, whose birth is reported in Parashat Vayishlach), and provides as well the reason behind each child’s name (with the exception of Dina, whose name is not explained in the Torah).  We read that Rachel and Leah made some kind of declaration upon the birth of each child, and they gave the child a name related to that declaration.

            Although this is the pattern that runs throughout this narrative, Rashi (29:34), citing the Midrash, notes a difference in how the Torah connected the various names with the mother’s declaration.  In some instances, the Torah emphasized, “therefore [al kein] she called him…”  On other occasions, however, the Torah simply recorded the mother’s response to the birth followed by the name produced from this response, without the emphasis of “al kein.”  Rashi comments that the use or omission of the term “al kein” in each instance alludes to the future of the tribe that would later emerge from the given child.  As a rule, Rashi writes, when the Torah emphasized the link between the mother’s declaration and the birth with the term “al kein,” a large tribe emerged from that child.  The children whose names were not introduced with this expression produced smaller-sized tribes.  The exception to this rule, Rashi notes, is the tribe of Levi, which ranked among the smaller tribes despite the use of the word “al kein” in reference to Levi’s name.  Rashi explains that the Levite population was diminished because they bore the responsibility of transporting the Mishkan in the wilderness, and improper exposure to the ark resulted in death.

            How might we explain this significance afforded by Chazal to the term “al kein”?

            The Maharal of Prague, in his Gur Aryeh, suggests three different explanations, the final of which he appears to view as the primary and most compelling approach:

When it [the Torah] says, “al kein,” it attaches the reason for the name with the name, as opposed to the place where it did not say, “al kein,” and [thus] does not attach the reason for the name with the name.  Now the reason for the name is something of intelligence, in that it provides a reason, and because it attached intelligence to it has a loftier stature – hence the increase [in population].

The Maharal seems to explain the significance of al kein in light of the importance of reason and logic.  The more firmly the name is grounded in a specific reason, the “loftier” its stature.  In the cases where the Torah wrote “al kein,” the name was exclusively the product of the reason given; apparently, in the situations where “al kein” is omitted, the name’s association with the reason given is less direct.  In the former cases, the added dimension of reason and logic resulted in greater blessing.

            What Chazal might be teaching here, then, is the importance of acting in a reasoned, calculated manner.  Quite simply, actions that are undertaken in a manner characterized by “al kein” – for a clearly-defined purpose, and as the result of careful planning and consideration – are more likely to succeed and endure.  Rash, reckless and haphazard decision-making – the precise opposite of “al kein” – often leads to failure or underachievement.  The message of al kein is thus importance of acting for a reason, rather than with mindless impulse.