The Israel Koschitzky Virtual Beit Midrash

Surf A Little Torah
Yeshivat Har Etzion

by Rav David Silverberg

Parashat Vayetze begins with the story of Yaakov's flight from Be'er Sheva, escaping his brother, Esav. Along the way, Yaakov makes a vow: "If God remains with me, and if He protects me on this journey that I am making, and gives me bread to eat and dwelling to wear, and if I return safe to my father's house - the Lord shall be my God… " (28:20-21; this translation follows the view among the commentators that "the Lord shall be my God" marks the beginning of Yaakov's promise, rather than the final condition). An intriguing Midrash affords great significance to the word "ve-haya" in this promise (in the clause, "ve-haya Hashem li le-Elokim" - the Lord shall be my God). The Midrash (Bereishit Rabba 89) records a response by God to this terminology. In reward for this proclamation of Yaakov, God promises that "all the goodness, blessings and consolation that I grant your children will be granted specifically with this expression." The Midrash proceeds to cite several examples when a prophecy foreseeing God's ultimate redemption of Benei Yisrael employs the term, "ve-haya," intentionally paralleling Yaakov's usage of the term in this vow.

Wherein lies the special significance of this term, such that the Almighty makes a point of invoking it as He blesses and consoles Benei Yisrael?

The Sefat Emet explains by differentiating between human and divine consolation. A human being can offer words of comfort that perhaps, at best, soothe the pain suffered by a bereaved mourner. Nevertheless, he cannot replace that which is lost; sympathy and friendship are indeed helpful and critical during times of loss, but there is a limit to their effectiveness. The Almighty, however, can provide complete comfort. Only He can show how ultimately everything that happens, including all the pain, suffering, hardship and calamities, somehow works into His master plan and to our benefit. The Midrash expresses this quality of divine consolation, as expressed by the prophets, by focusing on the word "ve-haya." If we drop the conjunction, "ve-" (and) from this word, we are left with "haya" - "it was." The letter "vav" added to the word is known as the "vav ha-hipukh" - the "vav" that reverses the tense of the word, transforming it from past to future tense. God's consolation operates in such a manner. He, and He alone, can transform the past from negative to positive, from anguish to joy, from despair to celebration. We are not expected to know how this will occur, but rather that it will occur. Somehow, the Sefat Emet, claims, the evil and tragedies of the world will retroactively be shown to have been for the best, as promised by the prophets with the single term, "ve-haya."

*******

The opening verse of Parashat Vayetze tells that Yaakov "left Be'er Sheva, and he went to Charan." As we know, as dark sets in he lies down to sleep, at which point he beholds his famous dream of the ladder and God's promise of protection. After he awakes from the dream and declares his vow (of which we spoke yesterday), we read, "Yaakov lifted his feet and came to the land of the east" (29:1). Interestingly, when Yaakov first leaves Be'er Sheva, he heads towards "Charan"; when he resumes his journey after his nocturnal stopover, he makes his way "to the lands of the east." How may we explain this discrepancy?

Rav Meir Simcha ha-Kohen, in his Meshekh Chokhma, explains that as he first set out on his trip, Yaakov set his sights specifically on Charan, where his extended family lived. Leaving town for the first time, he had nowhere else to go. He began his journey with the understanding that in Charan he will find safety and security. However, during Yaakov's dream God promises him, "I will protect you wherever you go" (28:5). Yaakov receives a guarantee of divine protection regardless of where he ends up. It does not matter which city or country he chooses as his place of refuge; God will grant him refuge anywhere. Therefore, when he resumes his trek, Yaakov now heads towards "the land of the east." He moves eastward, away from Canaan, but does not look to Charan or any other specific land as his destination. God's promise has changed his perspective; he no longer seeks refuge with his uncle in Charan, but rather depends on the Almighty as his source of safety.

In the spirit of "ma'aseh avot siman la-banim" - what happened to our forefathers serves as a prediction of what will occur to their descendants, Yaakov's flight from Be'er Sheva is often seen as symbolic of the unfortunate Jewish experience of exile. Sure enough, this change of perspective from "going to Charan" to "going to the land of the east" has played a major role throughout this long, bitter experience. Am Yisrael has made a habit of initially heading to "Charan," setting our sights upon a specific location where we feel "at home," among our "family," so-to-speak, and establishing ourselves there as we wait for the redemption. Ultimately, we discover that these "friends" are in fact "Lavan," and there, too, we must rely on God's protection. The Meshekh Chokhma in effect claims that Yaakov earned divine protection because he went not with the perspective of "Charan," that here he will find safety, but rather with the mindset of "the land of the east," with the understanding that no matter where he ends up, God alone decides his fate and grants him protection.

*******

A well-known Gemara in Masekhet Berakhot (26b) brings a debate as to the origins of our three daily prayers - shacharit, mincha and arvit. According to one view, the three patriarchs instituted these tefilot: Avraham introduced shacharit, Yitzchak established the mincha service, and Yaakov Avinu, as derived from a verse in Parashat Vayetze (28:11; see Rashi), instituted the nightly arvit prayer. A second view in the Gemara maintains that these prayers were introduced later to correspond to the three daily sacrificial rituals in the Temple. Shacharit parallels the morning "tamid" (daily) offering, mincha corresponds to the afternoon "tamid," while arvit commemorates the "hekter chalavim ve-eimurin," the burning of the various sacrificial animal-parts on the altar, which extended into and through the night.

According to both views, we have trouble understanding a discussion just a bit later in Masekhet Berakhot (27b) concerning the status of tefilat arvit. A heated debate erupted between Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua as to whether an obligation to recite arvit even exists. Rabbi Yehoshua maintained that "tefilat arvit reshut" - this prayer is voluntary, and not obligatory. At first glance, neither of the aforementioned views concerning the origins of the tefilot would warrant a distinction between arvit on the one hand and shacharit and mincha on the other. Why, then, did Rabbi Yehoshua contend that arvit is optional? We should note that, strictly speaking, halakha follows this view of Rabbi Yehoshua; however, as the Rishonim point out, Am Yisrael has collectively accepted the recitation of arvit as an obligation, and we must therefore treat it as such.

At first glance (as we indeed suggested in a S.A.L.T. two years ago), one would perhaps associate Rabbi Yehoshua's position with the view that the three tefilot correspond to the sacrificial service. The consumption of the sacrificial meat and fats on the altar is not indispensable to the acceptance of the sacrifice. So long as the principal stages of the sacrifice were performed properly, the obligation concerning the sacrifice has been fulfilled, even if the fats and other parts never make it onto the altar. Accordingly, one might argue that arvit, which, as this view maintains, parallels this ritual, is only optional.

However, as Rav Aharon Lewin argues in his "ha-Derash ve-ha-Iyun," such an explanation cannot be entertained. After all, although failure to offer the animal-parts on the altar has no effecon the korban, it is nevertheless a clear requirement of the Torah. Therefore, should we accept the parallel between this ritual and arvit, the latter must also be seen an obligation.

Rav Lewin therefore suggests that to the contrary, Rabbi Yehoshua's position regarding arvit evolves from the other view in the earlier Gemara, that the forefathers instituted the three tefilot. The mishna in Masekhet Berakhot (28b) asserts that one who finds himself in a dangerous situation should recite a "tefila ketzara," a brief prayer. Under such circumstances, Rav Lewin explains, one does not have the mindset necessary for proper concentration on his tefila. Chazal therefore required him to utter just a brief prayer, rather than engage in lengthy supplication. Accordingly, Yaakov Avinu, as he traveled alone, penniless and defenseless, fleeing the wrath of his brother, was expected to utter just a brief prayer. His trust in God, however, allowed him to concentrate as one should and he thus prayed a complete service. Yaakov here established the concept of a voluntarily tefilat arvit - a prayer one may and perhaps should recite, but one which he did not intend as an obligation upon all individuals. Since the situation required but a brief supplication, we cannot view this prayer recited and instituted by Yaakov as an outright obligation.

Rav Lewin concludes by noting that this approach could explain a certain anomaly in the Gemara's discussion of this topic. The Gemara tells that a certain student in the study hall posed the question as to whether arvit constitutes an obligatory service. After telling the entire story of the ensuing controversy, the Gemara makes a point of informing us that this student was none other than Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai. Of what importance is this detail of the story? Rav Lewin suggests that we understand this Gemara in light of a passage in Midrash Mishlei (22), which cites Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai as explicitly attributing the three tefilot to the three patriarchs. Given his stance regarding the origins of the prayer services, we can readily understand why Rabbi Shimon posed this question to the scholars. If he had sided with the other view, that the prayers were instituted to correspond to the sacrifices, then no distinction could be drawn between the various prayers, as explained. Only because of Rabbi Shimon's view that the patriarchs established these tefilot could he raise the question as to whether arvit is optional or obligatory.

*******

Parashat Vayetze tells the famous story of Yaakov's marriages, his having been swindled by his uncle, Lavan, who gave him his oldest daughter, Leah, instead of the younger daughter, Rachel, whom Yaakov had planned to marry. When Yaakov protests to his uncle, Lavan tells him to "complete this week," after which he will then give him Rachel, as well (29:27). The Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer (16) derives from this verse the obligation of "shiv'at yemei ha-mishteh" - the seven days of wedding festivities celebrated by a bride and groom after their wedding. During this week, meals prepared for the newlywed couple are concluded with the special "sheva berakhot," the seven blessings of praise to God in honor of the joyous occasion. The Gemara in Masekhet Ketubot (7b) establishes that sheva berakhot are recited only in the presence of ten men, based on a verse in Sefer Rut (4:2). An interesting question arises as to whether or not sheva berakhot are recited when the couple eats together with ten men but the meal was not specifically prepared for them. For example, the couple decide to go eat in a restaurant during the week of sheva berakhot, and a minyan happens to be present. Or, if a newlywed couple fly to or from Israel during the sheva berakhot week, may or should they arrange to have sheva berakhot recited after meals with ten men on the flight?

This question was posed to Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv of Yerushalayim ("Kovetz Teshuvot" 161). He notes that in the work "Ezer mi-Kodesh" the practice is recorded to recite sheva berakhot at every meal attended by the couple (and a minyan) regardless of whether or not the meal was specifically prepared in their honor. Rav Elyashiv however notes that several earlier sources clearly indicate otherwise. The Taz (E.H. 62) writes that the blessing should be recited "in every house where a meal is conducted in honor of the bride and groom." This clearly suggests that the meal must have been prepared specifically with the couple in mind. On the basis of this and other sources, Rav Elyashiv concludes that only in a meal conducted for the bride and groom are the sheva berakhot recited. He notes that two months before receiving the letter with this halakhic inquiry, he indeed issued such a ruling in a case where a bride and groom attended a berit mila celebration within a week after their wedding. Rav Elyashiv claimed that sheva berakhot should not be recited at the se'udat berit mila, since the meal was held in honor of the berit, not in honor of their marriage.

In a different context, Rav Elyashiv addresses another issue that arises when a newlywed couple attend a berit mila celebration. Besides the special seven blessings recited after birkat ha-mazon, at a sheva berakhot celebration we add the words, "she-ha-simcha bi-m'eono" to the introductory "zimun" recitation before birkat ha-mazon, in honor of the happy occasion. The Gemara in Masekhet Ketubot (8a) rules that this special formula is not recited at a "se'udat berit mila," despite the fact that it, too, marks a happy occasion. The reason given is that the pain experienced by the circumcised baby diminishes the joyous spirit of the parents, and hence the recitation of "she-ha-simcha bi-me'ono" would be inappropriate. What is the halakha if a newlywed couple is in attendance at the berit; does their presence add a sufficient level of simcha to warrant this recitation? Rav Elyashiv claimed that the "tza'ara de-yenuka" (pain suffered by the child) does not introduce a sobering quality that precludes the possibility of a "she-ha-simcha bi-me'ono" recitation, but rather diminishes the level of simcha such that the recitation is unwarranted. Therefore, if the requisite degree of simcha is supplied by some other factor, such as the presence of a bride and groom, the special recitation is indeed in order. However, consistent with his previous ruling, Rav Elyashiv adds that something must be added to the meal specifically in honor for the bride and groom in order to allow for the recitation of "she-ha-simcha bi-me'ono." Only then can we consider the meal a celebration in their honor which warrants the inclusion of the special birkat ha-mazon and sheva berakhot.

(Taken from the weekly, mi-Saviv la-Shulchan, Shabbat Parashat Vayetze, 5762)

*******

Parashat Vayetze tells of Yaakov Avinu's flight from Canaan to escape his brother, Esav. In his commentary to 29:11, Rashi cites the famous description in the Midrash of Yaakov's poverty as he left to Charan. (In Parashat Vayishlach, Yaakov himself testifies that he left Canaan with nothing more than his walking staff - see 32:11). The Midrash tells that Yaakov actually had a considerable fortune when he set out from his parents' home. But Esav sent his son, Elifaz, after Yaakov to kill him, and Elifaz indeed followed his uncle and caught him. But Elifaz had spent time under the influence of his grandfather, Yitzchak, and therefore could not bring himself to kill Yaakov. But what about his father's command? How could he disobey the order to kill Yaakov? Yaakov suggested that he take all his money. Since, as Chazal tell us, "ani chashuv ke-met" - a poor person is considered "dead," stealing all of Yaakov's wealth could qualify as a fulfillment of Esav's charge that Elifaz kill Yaakov. Elifaz accepted the advice and took Yaakov's possessions.

Why is a poor person considered "dead"? What is it about poverty that justifies this analogy?

An interesting theory is advanced by the Maharal of Prague, in his Gur Aryeh. Life, as viewed by Chazal, is characterized by, among other things, a sense of independence, a self-sustaiexistence. One can be said to "live" only if he does not depend on anyone or anything else (other than the Almighty, of course) for his existence. The poor person, however, has no independent means of sustaining himself; he depends entirely on the assistance of others. Chazal therefore consider him, in a certain sense, "dead."

The Maharal enlists this theory to explain several verses in Tanakh. In Parashat Behar (Vayikra 25:36), the Torah speaks about the mitzva of tzedaka and requires that "ve-chei achikha imakh" - "your brother shall live with you." The community bears the obligation not merely to assist the poor individual in their midst, but to see to it, as best they can, that he "lives," that he establishes some sort of fiscal independence so that he need not depend on others for his livelihood. Similarly, a verse in Mishlei (15:27) asserts that "sonei matanot yichyeh" - one who despises gifts will live. This verse is commonly understood to mean that someone who feels content with what he has and refuses to accept gifts is deserving of a long life. The Maharal, however, explains that someone who refuses to become dependent on others truly "lives," in the fullest sense of the term. The Maharal notes that this approach also explains the common Biblical expression "mayim chayim," "living water," which means a fresh water spring. Tanakh refers to such a spring as "living" because it is independently sustained, flowing by itself, rather than being fed by another source.

We might add that this understanding of "mayim chayim" may shed new light on a verse in Sefer Yirmiyahu. The prophet conveys God's condemnation of the people, claiming that "they have forsaken Me, the fount of living waters ['mekor mayim chayim'], and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, which cannot even hold water" (Yirmiyahu 2:13). God here criticizes the people for leaving Him in favor of foreign faiths and cultures. Appropriately, in so doing He describes Himself and His Torah as a "mekor mayim chayim," a source of "living water," an independent source of wisdom and values. The Torah does not rely on any other religious source to feed it, to dictate its principles and guidelines, to introduce customs and norms. Like a fountain of fresh water, the Torah is self-sufficient and must not be corrupted by foreign influences. Benei Yisrael at that time forsook the Torah and adopted "broken cisterns that cannot even hold water." Unlike the Torah, which is authentically independent and self-sustaining, foreign doctrines cannot even "hold water," whatever they contain is lost in a relatively short period of time. Given the human source of these faiths, they will fluctuate and ultimately disappear as man changes his attitudes and thinking. We may therefore never forsake the independent Torah, which provides its own water, its own, endless supply of wisdom, values, and kedusha.

*******

Yesterday we discussed the state of abject poverty in which Yaakov leaves Canaan and travels to Charan. Leaving aside the circumstances that brought him to destitution -yesterday we saw the Midrash's comment that Yaakov gave all his money to Esav's son, Elifaz, a broader issue should be addressed: wherein lies the symbolic significance of this condition? If the Midrash took the trouble to emphasize Yaakov's poverty, we may assume that it deemed this detail an important component of Yaakov's experience.

One explanation might relate to the general concept of exile which Yaakov's flight from Canaan represents. When Am Yisrael leaves their homeland and must find residence among foreign peoples, they become entirely dependent on God's supernatural protection. Whereas in the Land of Israel the Jewish people can live a natural existence, more or less parallel to the existence of other independent nation-states, as exiles under foreign rule they cannot survive without the miraculous workings of Providence. Yaakov leaves Canaan with but the shirt on his back and the staff in his hand, vulnerable, helpless, and hopeless. The Jew outside his homeland must always see himself in this light - as independently feeble, relying solely on divine compassion and miracles.

This idea may underlie the image of the angels ascending and descending the ladder in Yaakov's dream (28:12), as explained by Rashi. Rashi identifies the ascending angels as the angels of Eretz Yisrael who looked after Yaakov heretofore; the descending angels come to escort him as he journeys outside his homeland. A Jew's existence outside Eretz Yisrael differs from his experience within the borders of his land. In exile, Benei Yisrael require a unique type of protection to ensure their safety and security in hostile and foreign surroundings.

Rav Shimshon Refael Hirsch, in his commentary to the beginning of Parashat Vayetze, alludes to a different message underlying Yaakov's state of destitution as he leaves Canaan. Rav Hirsch focuses not on the departure itself, but rather on Yaakov's goal as he makes his way to Charan: to marry and establish his family, the family that will form Am Yisrael. His experience demonstrates that what a Jew requires to build his home, and what the nation needs to build itself, is not material possessions, but spiritual treasures. Yaakov headed towards family life with nothing other than his spiritual wealth, underscoring the relative unimportance of material possessions in the formation of a Jewish home. This possibly sheds light on Chazal's famous account of the twelve years Yaakov spent learning in yeshiva before heading to Charan. When we view this Midrash off the backdrop of the incident of Elifaz, discussed yesterday, it emerges that as he left Canaan Yaakov exerted himself in the accumulation of spiritual fortune, but gave away all his material possessions. These two images are perhaps meant to highlight this message as to the relationship between the material and spiritual from a Torah perspective. When we build our homes, families and our own lives, we must ensure to place the emphasis where it belongs, and to maintain the proper balance between our material and spiritual pursuits.

*******

After awakening from his famous dream of the ladder, Yaakov Avinu formulates an oath, by which he will turn that location into a "house of God" if several conditions are met, including that God gives him "bread to eat and clothing to wear" (28:20). In an enigmatic passage, the Midrash Rabba writes as follows: "bread to wear - this refers to challa; clothing to wear - this refers to reishit ha-gez." Challa and reishit ha-gez are two of the donations the Torah requires Benei Yisrael to give to the kohanim. Challa is taken from the dough used in baking (see Bemidbar 15:17-21), and reishit ha-gez refers to the first shearing of wool which one must give to the kohen (Devarim 18:4). The obvious question arises as to why the Midrash draws this association between Yaakov's prayer for divine assistance and matenot kehuna (the priestly gifts). Why did Yaakov compare the bread and clothing which he requests to matenot kehuna?

The following explanation is cited in the name of the "Sha'arei Simcha." That which a kohen receives as matenot kehuna cannot possibly be attributed to his own efforts. He can never take any credit for his having acquired these items; he fully understands that he has received them through the generous donation of others. The Midrash understood that Yaakov Avinu prayed not only for food and clothing, but for the proper attitude towards that food and clothing. Perhaps foreseeing that he will have to work hard for his bread and clothing (see later in the parasha, 31:38-40), Yaakov asked the Almighty to help him always view what he has as a gift from God, rather than the result of his own efforts. He prayed for the ability to maintain the proper perspective on his wealth, as the Almighty's blessing, that he will never mistakenly see his possessions as merely the fruits of his own labor.

A careful look at this verse reveals that, as is often the case, this Midrashic interpretation actually relates far more closely to the "peshat," or simple reading, of the v, than we might have originally thought. Yaakov declares that he will construct the "Bet Elokim" if God "gives me bread to eat and clothing to wear." The Midrash may have picked up on the fact that Yaakov did not say, "and I have bread to eat and clothing to wear." Yaakov thus emphasizes that he hopes to always see what he has as a gift from above, as given to him by the Almighty.

Indeed, towards the end of the parasha we see that this wish is fulfilled. Yaakov not only amasses a considerable fortune, but twice he expresses his recognition of God's indispensable role in his success. Speaking to his wives about the growing friction between him and their father, Yaakov asserts, "The God of my father has been with me. As you know, I have served your father with all my might; but your father has cheated me, changing my wages time and again. God, however, would not let him do me harm" (31:5-7). He later repeats this claim to Lavan himself: "I spent twenty years in your household… and you changed my wages time and again. Had not the God of my father, the God of Avraham and the Fear of Yitzchak, been with me, you would have sent me away empty-handed" (31:41-42). As he requested, all throughout his tumultuous business relationship with Lavan, he never attributed his success to his own acumen and cunning, but rather to the Almighty who looked after him and granted him prosperity.

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