The Israel Koschitzky Virtual Beit Midrash

Surf A Little Torah
Yeshivat Har Etzion

Parashat Vayetze concludes with Yaakov's mysterious encounter with angels upon his return to Eretz Canaan from Charan (32:2). Yaakov declares upon beholding this sight, "This is the camp of God," and he names the location Machanayim (literally, "two camps," referring to the "camps" of angels). What is the significance of this encounter, and why did Yaakov choose the name "Machanayim?"

Rav Soloveitchik zt"l is cited as explaining Yaakov's response to this vision based on the comments of Targum Yonatan Ben Uziel on this verse. The Targum Yonatan translates the name "Machanayim" as "Beit Kudsha Machanayim" - the sacred house of Machanayim. What compelled Targum Yonatan to add this descriptive prefix to the name? More to the point, what do the words "Beit Kudsha" imply about this location as Yaakov viewed it?

The Rav suggested an approach based on the Ibn Ezra's observation that Yaakov alone beheld the heavenly angels. No one else in his entourage - neither his wives, children, or servants - had this vision. Now when Yaakov initially left Eretz Canaan, at the beginning of our parasha, he was alone; perhaps, he may have thought, if others had accompanied him they would have experienced the same prophecy that he saw. Here, however, Yaakov realizes that God speaks specifically to him. Potentially, the exclusivity of this vision could be interpreted as characterizing the Torah's view of religious experience: it is reserved only for the select few. Nobody other than the exceptional elite can approach or begin to "behold" the Almighty.

Needless to say, this is not the case. Spirituality - or the potential for spirituality - is granted to everyone who invests the effort and sincerely works for it. Yaakov felt the need to emphasize the universality of kedusha. Therefore, according to Targum Yonatan, he named that location "Bet Kudsha Machanayim." In a certain sense, the terms "bayit" (house) and "machaneh" (camp) diametrically oppose one another. "Bayit" denotes a private domain, the exclusive privileges of the "ba'al ha-bayit" (homeowner) to his property. A "machaneh," by contrast, lies out in the open, accessible to one and all. The Rav noted as well that "machaneh" often refers to a battlefield, where no distinction is made between the different soldiers; everyone places his life on the line. Yaakov thus expresses his belief that the "house of sanctity" that he beheld, the exclusive vision to which he alone had access, is, in truth, "machanayim," an open field readily accessible to all who choose to enter.

When it comes to kedusha, one can never claim "it's not for me." While not everyone can become a prominent scholar or spiritual leader of Kelal Yisrael, everyone has the potential for excellence in some area of avodat Hashem. One must simply find his specific rank in the "machaneh" and assume his position, and then he, too, can behold God's "heavenly angels."

*****

Unable to bear children, Rachel decides - as Sara had many years earlier - to give her maidservant as a wife to Yaakov to bear children on her behalf. The second child resulting from Yaakov's marriage to Bilha was Naftali. This name evolved from Rachel's declaration, "Naftulei Elokim niftalti im achoti gam yokholti." This is a particularly difficult verse to translate, and indeed the commentators offer various suggestions. Rashi cites one interpretation in the name of the renowned grammarian, Menachem Ben Saruk, identifying the term "naftulei" as a variation of the more familiar word, "petil," a covering attached onto a utensil (see Bemidbar 19:15). The verse would then mean that Rachel became figuratively attached to her sister, joining her in childbearing.

Rashi himself, however, advances a much different approach, linguistically associating this term with Moshe Rabbeinu's description of Benei Yisrael as a "dor ikesh uftaltol" (Devarim 32:5), referring to the nation's obstinacy. Moshe there juxtaposes the adjectives "ikesh" and "petaltol," indicating that the latter likewise connotes some form of stubbornness, like the word "ikesh." (The familiar term "akshan" describes a stubborn person.) Rashi explains that Rachel here alludes to her campaign of constant and insistent prayer entreating the Almighty to bless her with children. It was this obstinate and uncompromising insistence that she describes in this verse.

Rav Yerucham Lebovitz zt"l, the Mirrer Mashgiach, elaborates on this quality of Rachel as manifest in this parasha. He compares Rachel in this sense to Moshe, who, as Chazal write, uttered 515 prayers before the Almighty, begging Him to allow him to enter Eretz Canaan. This strength of character and firm resolve, Rav Yerucham writes, very often characterizes great people. They set a goal for themselves and pursue it relentlessly, come what may. He adds in this context a few comments about the Chafetz Chayim that are worth citing: "We think that everything worked out easily for the Chafetz Chayim zt"l. But the Chafetz Chayim grew thanks only to his intense obstinacy. Recently, when he planned to travel to Eretz Yisrael, something happened that held him back and I thought that he would never again plan to go, seeing that from the heavens he was held back. But it was written to me that the Chafetz Chayim zt"l called his son-in-law and transmitted the following message to him: 'He should know that this will have no effect on me - I'm going!'"

Rav Yerucham further quotes a well known Gemara in Masekhet Berakhot (32b): "Four matters require reinforcement - Torah, good deeds, prayer and one's profession." Many people mistakenly read this Gemara as stressing the need for physical exertion in these areas; they are all demanding and time-consuming. In truth, however, this refers to mental resolve. In these areas one must set his goals and pursue them with uncompromising insistence.

After the sin of the golden calf, God bemoans Benei Yisrael's "stiff-necked" tendencies. We often fail to heed warning signals and ignore rebuke. When it comes to avodat Hashem, however, it is essential that we stiffen our necks. We must display the quality of "Naftali," the willpower to do what needs to be done and accomplish all the goals we set for ourselves.

*****

Though Lavan has certainly earned himself an infamous reputation in our tradition, oddly enough, his conduct in Parashat Vayeitze has served, by example, as an authoritative precedent for certain halakhot. Tosafot in Masekhet Kiddushin 52a record an incident of a certain wealthy man who had two daughters of marriageable age. A young man gave the man "kessef kiddushin" (betrothal money) and said, "Your daughter is betrothed to me" ("Bitekha mekudeshet li"). Which daughter has the groom betrothed? If an informal engagement had been previously announced, then we may assume that the groom intended to marry the girl with whom the match was originally made. However, what happens if the father and groom never singled out one of the two daughters? Rabbenu Tam issued a ruling based on Lavan's justification for his having given his oldest, Leah, to Yaakov instead of Rachel: "This is not done in our place, to give the older before the younger." The local practice in Charan, Lavan's hometown, to avoid marrying off younger daughters before their older sisters has apparently dictated normative halakhic guidelines, and the oldest of the two single daughters becomes the bride. Indeed, Tosafot cite a view that disputes this ruling, and record that Rabbenu Tam himself expressed ambivalence and may have even retracted his ruling. Nevertheless, the Rashbam, in Masekhet Bava Batra 120a, likewise cites this verse as a source to this effect.

Another halakha possibly learned from Lavan's ritualistic practice is the principle of "ein me'arvin simcha be-simcha" - the prohibition against combining two festive celebrations. After Yaakov complains at having substituted Leah for Rachel, Lavan promises to ghimRachel a week later in exchange for another seven years of work. Why must they wait a week? The Yerushalmi in Masekhet Mo'ed Katan explains that Yaakov could not marry Rachel during the week of celebration for his marriage to Leah, since it is forbidden to merge two mitzva-related celebrations. Once again, Lavan's practices become authoritative halakha.

We find another two examples of this sort in Parashat Chayei-Sara, which we read two weeks ago. Rivka's family requests a period of a year before Rivka goes to marry Yitzchak. Although Avraham's servant refused, Chazal in Masekhet Ketubot derive from there the rule that a young bride is given twelve months from her betrothal to prepare herself for marriage. Similarly, Masekhet Kalla views the berakha bestowed upon Rivka by her family before her departure as the basis for the "birkat chatanim," the berakha recited at Jewish weddings.

Perhaps the easiest way to understand all these instances of deriving law from infamous characters is to consider them "asmakhtot," allusions, rather than clear-cut sources, in the Biblical text. These verses are not the true basis for these laws; they were either taught through oral tradition or legislated by Chazal. The verses are mentioned merely as a subtle hint in the Torah. Indeed, Tosafot in Masekhet Ketubot deem the extrapolation of birkat chatanim from Rivka's family's blessing as an asmakhta; we may wish to extend this to the other cases, as well.

If, however, one wishes to insist that these sources are truly used as basis for halakha, we should perhaps reassess our outlook on Lavan. (According to Chazal, Betuel, Lavan and Rivka's father, had died before the match between Rivka and Yitzchak was agreed upon. Hence, the halakhot derived from Parashat Chayei-Sara involve only Lavan, not Betuel.) While we generally view Lavan as a black-on-white, extreme example of pure evil and corruption, these sources in Chazal may indicate otherwise. Lavan may have been meticulously observant when it came to the ritualistic details such as marriage and wedding protocol. In fact, all we know about Lavan is his trickery and deceit. Additionally, he possessed "terafim" (31:19), which some sources interpret as a fortune-telling device (see Pirkei De-Rabbi Eliezer 36; Midrash Tanchuma, Vayetze 12). Rachel stole this equipment before her flight with Yaakov from Lavan's home in fear that he would use them to discover their whereabouts. Lavan was ruthlessly sly and conniving and employed whatever means he had at his disposal to outsmart others. Yet, he remained absolutely loyal to the strict letter of the law.

Furthermore, the Midrash (cited by Rashi, 29:18) claims that Yaakov was fully aware of Lavan's tactics. He therefore specifically requested "Rachel, your youngest daughter," so as to ensure that Lavan would not rename another daughter Rachel and give her to Yaakov. Meaning, Yaakov knew that Lavan would never simply renege on a verbal agreement; he would not resort to overt dishonesty. He would rather work within the terms of a contractual agreement to swindle and cheat.

Perhaps, then, Lavan shows us that it is possible to strictly adhere to laws and protocols while at the same time make a career out of corruption. We can base halakhot on Lavan's practices because ritually speaking, he was meticulously observant. However, when it comes to middot, respectful conduct and general uprightness, Lavan is precisely the example we are meant not to follow.

*****

As Parashat Vayetze opens we find Yaakov on the run from his brother, Esav. Along the way he dreams his famous dream, awakens, and constructs an altar on the site. In describing his awakening, the Torah writes that Yaakov arose "from his sleep" - "mishenato." The Midrash (Bereishit Rabba 69:7) suggests that we read this word as if an extra letter "mem" was appended to it: "mi-mishnato," which would mean, "from his study session." Meaning, Yaakov arose not from his sleep, but from his Torah learning. What does this Midrash come to teach us? What can it possibly mean that Yaakov "arose" from learning - the verses explicitly state that he slept and dreamt!

A beautiful explanation is offered by Rav Meshulam Rath, who served on the court of Israel's Chief Rabbinate in the State's early years, in his work, Kol Mevaser (1:28). The Tur, in Orach Chayim 231, cites Rabbenu Yona as commenting that if one sleeps for the sake of preserving his strength to enable him to study Torah and perform mitzvot, then his sleep, too, becomes akin to actual Torah study. Even the pinnacle of inactivity, sleep, can become a sacred act of service to the Creator, when performed with the proper underlying motivation. Chazal understood that our verse must be alluding to this quality of sleep in its reference to Yaakov's sleep. The verse does not read, "Yaakov arose," or "Yaakov woke up from sleeping." Instead, it relates, "Yaakov arose from HIS sleep." How does one's sleep become his personal sleep? The Midrash thus explains that if one sleeps to further the interests of his lofty ideals, in order to bolster his avodat Hashem, then he has taken full control over his natural physical tendencies in this regard. Yaakov slept HIS sleep, because he slept for pure motives. Someone who sleeps purely for the sake of physical comfort or disinterest in constructive activity sleeps the same "sleep" as anyone else; it has not become his own, personal activity.

But why would this message arise specifically now, in this context? Why do we not hear of this concept with regard to Avraham or Yitzchak?

The principle established by this Midrash may very much relate to the immediate context of Yaakov's dream, the vision of the angels ascending and descending. As Yaakov exclaims, "This can only be the house of God - and this is the gate to the heavens!" "The gate to the heavens" means the point of intersection between heaven and earth, where the physical meets the spiritual. One arrives at this point by turning "shenato," his sleep, into "mishenato," his study session. By conducting even one's physical needs in the spirit of sanctity, he can experience the "gate to the heavens."

[We should note that Rav Rath's explanation of this Midrash involves a broader issue in Midrashic methodology. He claims that whenever Chazal employ the concept of "al tikrei… ela," calling for a seemingly arbitrary rereading of a word, they do so because of some difficulty arising from interpreting the word as is. Rav Rath therefore demonstrates that in our verse, Chazal had good reason to prefer rereading the word "mishenato" over the straightforward meaning of the word as it appears.]

*****

Among the classic questions arising in halakhic literature related to Sefer Bereishit - and particularly to Parashat Vayetze - is the issue of Yaakov's having married two sisters, an explicit prohibition in the Torah (Vayikra 18:18). The Gemara in Masekhet Yoma (28b) asserts, based on a verse in Parashat Toledot (26:5), that the patriarchs observed the Torah though it had yet to be given. How, then, did Yaakov allow himself to marry two sisters?

The answers that have been given to this question are numerous as they are varied. Over the next couple of days, we will examine some of the more common suggestions.

At the outset we should note the possibility that indeed, Yaakov sinned in this regard, that he was, in fact, forbidden from marrying two sisters. This may perhaps be the implication of the Gemara in Masekhet Pesachim 119b - a passage that requires explanation in its own right - , which describes the lavish feast which will take place upon the arrival of the final redemption and attended by the patriarchs. Yaakov will be asked to lead the birkat hamazon recitation, says the Gemara, but he will decline, because he married two sisters. Apparently, Yaakov acknowledges his having violated this prohibition.

However, most commentaries feel compelled - with good reason - to find a basis for justifying Yaakov's marriage to Rachel and Leah on halakhic grounds. After all, the lawgoverning man-woman relations rank among the most severe of all areas of halakha; it seems inconceivable that Yawould viothese principle without basis. Furthermore, a careful reading of the aforementioned Gemara reveals that his marriage to two sisters was not altogether forbidden. Yaakov acknowledges having married two sisters "which was to be forbidden in the future." Meaning, Yaakov confesses that he should have avoided this marriage because it was to become forbidden in the future, though it was not forbidden at that point. Thus, Yaakov did not violate the law, strictly speaking, but he admits that it may have been preferable for him not to have acted in such a way.

Of course, this then raises the question, why was it not strictly forbidden at the time?

We will begin with perhaps the most famous answer, that of the Ramban. He posits a somewhat revolutionary theory that the patriarchs observed the Torah only while living in Eretz Canaan. When they lived elsewhere, such as during the period that Yaakov spent in Charan, they were not bound by Torah law. This of course raises the question as to how Yaakov remained married to both Rachel and Leah after his return to Canaan. The Ramban himself addresses this question in his commentary to Vayikra 18:25, where he presents a startling explanation: for this very reason God orchestrated events such that Rachel died soon after her return with Yaakov to Canaan. Certainly, this is not a very easy concept to accept. For this and other reasons, apparently, many later scholars reject the Ramban's approach.

A far simpler explanation that has been given claims that the patriarchs were not obligated to observe the mitzvot. They observed what they did not out of obligation, as we must after Matan Torah, but rather voluntarily. This approach has taken on different forms. The Sedei Chemed cites one version from the work, "Taharat Mayim," who claims quite simply that the patriarchs observed only the laws that they wished to. Rav Chayim of Volozhin, in his classic philosophical work, Nefesh Ha-chayim (1:21), elaborates a bit further on this point. In their penetrating depth and insight, the patriarchs intuited the mitzvot, understanding the effects they yield on the metaphysical realm. Therefore, they kept these laws despite never having been formally commanded. At times, however, overriding factors warranted violating the Torah, as doing so would better benefit the world. Clearly, after Matan Torah this cannot happen (except in the rate instances of "hora'at sha'a," a separate topic unto itself): once we accepted the mitzvot at Sinai, they become obligatory no matter what happens. When, however, the mitzvot are observed on a voluntary basis, the possibility exists of disregarding them for the sake of other spiritual and metaphysical interests. The Or Ha-chayim (Bereishit 49:3) explains similarly.

We will continue this discussion iy"H tomorrow.

David Silverberg

*****

Yesterday we began discussing the well known question as to why Yaakov Avinu was permitted to marry two sisters, in violation of a strict Torah prohibition. Yesterday we saw two answers: either the patriarchs did not observe the mitzvot outside of Eretz Canaan, or they observed the mitzvot only on a voluntary basis, overriding them when the need arose. Today we will look at three more answers that have been suggested.

The Maharal of Prague, in his Gur Aryeh (46:10), suggests that, quite simply, everything the patriarchs did regarding mitzva observance followed the guidance of their "ru'ach ha-kodesh" (prophetic intuition). The same ru'ach ha-kodesh that informed Yaakov of the mitzvot to begin with informed him likewise that he may marry two sisters.

To more clearly understand the Maharal's approach, it may be helpful for us to draw a distinction between the patriarchs' observance of the mitzvot and observance after Matan Torah. Once the Torah was given, Benei Yisrael are bound to a rigid system of objectively defined laws and regulations as transmitted and ultimately written and codified as the Oral Law. All our actions must conform to this system. The patriarchs, by contrast, did not observe a strict legal code per se, but rather followed the mode of conduct dictated by their prophetic powers. Generally speaking, the do's and don'ts dictated by their ru'ach ha-kodesh coincided with the rules and regulations of the Torah. In some instances, however, they diverged.

A somewhat surprising answer is given by the legendary halakhic codifier, Rav Moshe Isserlis, the Rema (in Shut Ha-Rama, 10). The Rema contends that only Avraham Avinu observed all the mitzvot; Yitzchak and Yaakov observed only the seven Noachide laws. The Rema makes this claim based on the Gemara's source for the patriarchs' having observed the mitzvot: "… since Avraham obeyed Me and kept My charge: My commandments, My laws and My teachings" (Bereishit 26:5). Obviously, this verse speaks only of Avraham. Other Acharonim, however, most notably the Sedei Chemed, sharply reject this theory, noting that nowhere throughout rabbinic literature has such a distinction between the patriarchs been drawn. Furthermore, Rashi towards the beginning of Parashat Vayishlach clearly states that Yaakov observed all 613 mitzvot (though that comment of Rashi is called into question in any event by Yaakov's having married two sisters).

Rav Eliyahu Mizrachi, cited by the Maharsha in Masekhet Yoma (28b), posits a different theory. Ever since God commanded Avraham and his descendants to perform a berit mila, anyone wishing to join this family must undergo the process of "geirut" (conversion). Thus, both Rachel and Leah had to "convert" (we're not sure precisely what this entailed) in order to marry Yaakov. Now a fundamental halakhic principle considers a convert "ke-katan she-nolad" - like a newborn, meaning, he has no legal relationship with his biological, gentile family. Therefore, from a strictly halakhic perspective, Rachel and Leah were not sisters, allowing Yaakov to marry both. (We should note that rabbinic enactment forbids marrying two sisters who converted to Judaism, even when polygamy was allowed.)

Tomorrow we will iy"H discuss one final answer to this question.

*****

Over the last two days we have discussed various approaches (five in all) taken by different sages as to why Yaakov married two sisters, in violation of a Torah prohibition. Today we continue this discussion by mentioning perhaps the most baffling answer given by a prominent scholar to this question. The Maharitz Chayot, in his notes to Masekhet Ta'anit (4), writes that although the patriarchs observed all the mitzvot, they did not adhere to the laws concerning marriage or forbidden relations. Mysteriously, the Maharitz Chayot offers not even a clue as to why this would be true, and indeed many later Acharonim have left this brief comment a mystery.

We cannot say so for sure, but the Maharitz Chayot may have possibly had in mind an answer provided in the twentieth century by Rav Moshe Feinstein (Iggerot Moshe, E.H. 4:9). Rav Moshe claims that a sister becomes forbidden to a man when her sister marries him specifically through the formal halakhic procedure of kiddushin. As the Rambam explains in detail at the beginning of Hilkhot Ishut, betrothal and marriage operated much differently prior to Matan Torah. A man would approach a woman with a marriage proposal, the two would consent, and they were considered married. The concept of a formal ceremony to effectuate the relationship of marriage, what we call kiddushin or eirusin, was introduced with Matan Torah. Only a marriage conducted with kiddushin, claims Rav Moshe, renders the bride's sister forbidden to her husband. Now before Matan Torah, when Yaakov married Rachel and Leah, no such institution of kiddushin existed. The patriarchs married in the same manner as other people; the formal status of marriage through kiddushin simply did not exist. Therefore, Yaakov was free to marry two sisters. (Rav Velvele Soloveitchik, in Chiddshei Ha-Griz Al Ha-Torah, explains along similar lines with slight variation.)

Whthe Maharitz Chayot wrote that the patriarchs did not observe the laws of forbidden marriages, he may have referred to this theory. Their marriages resembled those other people othe time, which did not feature the element of kiddushin. As such, the wife's relatives who become forbidden to the husband after Matan Torah, were not forbidden to Yaakov.

This shiur is provided courtesy of the Virtual Beit Midrash, the premier source of online courses on Torah and Judaism - 14 different courses on all levels, for all backgrounds.

Make Jewish learning part of your week on a regular basis - enroll in the
Virtual Beit Midrash

Yeshivat Har Etzion
Alon Shvut, Israel, 90433
office@etzion.org.il