Surf A Little Torah
Yeshivat Har Etzion

by Rav David Silverberg

Towards the beginning of his commentary to Parashat Vayeitzei, Rashi takes note of the fact that the Torah refers to Yaakov's departure from Be'er Sheva with the term, "vayeitzei" ("he left"), rather than the simpler word, "vayelekh" ("he went"). "Vayeitzei," Rashi writes, must mean that Yaakov's departure had intrinsic significance beyond its being the obvious first stage in Yaakov's journey to Charan. Rashi explains, "This teaches that a tzadik's departure from a location has an impact; for so long as the tzadik is in the city, he is its pride, he is its glory, he is its majesty." The Torah here seeks to emphasize the effect Yaakov's departure had on his town.

The obvious question arises, this is hardly the first time in Chumash that a righteous person changes locations. Avraham and Sara move numerous times, first from Ur Kasdim, then to Charan, and thereafter to Canaan. Even within Canaan, they move several times, including at one point to Egypt. Yitzchak and Rivka likewise move to Gerar, and later relocate outside the city. Yet, nowhere, until the first verse of Parashat Vayeitzei, does the Torah emphasize the effects the tzadik's departure had on the location from where he leaves. What is unique about Yaakov's departure that warrants this emphasis?

The Keli Yakar suggests that the "impact" of which Rashi speaks refers specifically to the effects felt by the tzadikim who remain in his city. Rashi means that when a righteous person leaves a community, the tzadikim who remain, who have, together with the one who now leaves, formed an established presence of piety and sanctity within the rest of society, feel the effects of his absence. They sense a feeling of loneliness and isolation as they have now become an even smaller minority among the broader community.

We may, however, suggest a different explanation. In Parashat Toledot (25:27), the Torah describes Yaakov as a "yosheiv ohalim" – a dweller of tents. Chazal and many later commentaries explain that Yaakov was a private person, who spent his time inside the "tents" of Torah study. As opposed to his brother, Esav, whom the Torah describes as an "ish sadeh" – a "man of the fields," a man of the outdoors, Yaakov spent his time inside the confines of the study hall, focusing on his own spiritual growth and development. One might have expected that the departure of this type of "tzadik" from a town would have very little impact on that community. Specifically here, therefore, the Torah, as understood by the Midrash Rashi brings, finds it necessary to stress the effect of Yaakov's departure on the town. The message, then, is that even a "dweller of tents," even those who make hardly an appearance in the public arena, can have a profound impact on those around them. A tzadik leaves his imprint on his surroundings even if he lives a private life, concentrating on his own growth in Torah and avodat Hashem.

******

Parashat Vayeitzei tells of Yaakov's experiences with his uncle and father-in-law, Lavan, for whom he also worked for twenty years. After twenty years of loyal service, Yaakov detects the development of friction between him and Lavan as a result of his success. He tells his wives, Rachel and Leah, "I see that your father's manner toward me is not as it has been in the past" (31:5). Commenting on this verse, the Midrash Lekach Tov cites the famous mishna from Pirkei Avot: "Jealousy, desire and honor remove a person from the world." Clearly, the Midrash understood, as is the simple meaning of the text, that Lavan's attitude towards Yaakov changed as his result of his feelings of envy due to Yaakov's immense wealth accumulated while working under Lavan. But what connection is there between this verse and this particular adage, that "jealousy, desire and honor remove a person from the world"?

Rav Yehuda Leib Ginsburg, in his "Yalkut Yehuda," explains that the Midrash refers not merely to Lavan's jealousy towards Yaakov, but to the magnitude and extent of that jealousy. He cites that Rav Yaakov Mecklenberg, in his "Ha-ketav Ve-ha'kabbala," observes that later, Lavan pursues Yaakov and his family and declares, "I have it in my power to do you harm," employing the plural term, "imakhem" ("you"). Meaning, Lavan planned to hurt not only Yaakov himself, but his entire family, as well – Lavan's daughters and grandchildren. Lavan's envy of Yaakov resulted in a wild rage which led him to seek the destruction of even his own offspring. When Yaakov describes that Lavan's "manner is not as it has been in the past," he actually speaks of a fit of madness triggered by jealousy, one which resulted in Lavan's pursuit of his own daughters and their children.

The Midrash makes note of this rage through this brief comment, that jealousy, along with desire and honor, "remove a person from the world." These three emotions have the capacity to overtake a person to such an extent that he is blinded to the long-term effects of his actions and he loses all sense of moral judgment and considerations. This blindness for reason can often lead a person to destroy himself, just as it leads Lavan to set out to destroy his own daughters and grandchildren.

******

Parashat Vayeitzei begins with Yaakov's departure from Be'er Sheva and journey towards Charan, during which he sees the famous dream of the ladder. As part of this vision, he receives a prophecy from God assuring him that he will be protected during his sojourn and will ultimately return to Canaan:

These verses are generally interpreted as personal promises to Yaakov Avinu himself. As he departs of Canaan, he has every reason to fear the repercussions of his departure. What will happen to the "blessing of Avraham" he had just received from his father (28:3-4)? If he leaves the Promised Land, how can he be assured that the land – and the promise – will remain his, that he, rather than Esav, will inherit the special blessing to Avraham and Yitzchak? God therefore reassures him that despite his absence from Canaan, the land will be given to him and to his offspring, who will become a great nation, as God had promised his father and grandfather.

Rav Yitzchak Arama, in his "Akeidat Yitzchak," suggests an entirely different and particularly novel interpretation of these verses. He argues that this promise cannot be directed to Yaakov personally, for it includes the guarantee of, "the ground on which you are lying I will give to you." Even upon his return to Canaan (in next week's parasha, Parashat Vayishlach), Yaakov never really takes possession of the land. (He purchases but a small piece of property outside the city of Shekhem.) The "Akeidat Yitzchak" therefore explains that God promises to give the land to the nation of Yaakov, rather than the person Yaakov. When God declares that He will give the land "to you and to your offspring," He means that He will give the land to Am Yisrael, and then again "to your offspring" – many generations later, after centuries of exile.

This promise, that God will give the land back to Am Yisrael after the nation's prolonged absence from the land, is developed in greater detail in the next verse. The "Akeidat Yitzchak" explains the metaphor of "the dust of the earth" as referring not to the large population of Yaakov's descendants, but rather to the lowly stature to which they will fall as a result of oppression and exile. Similarly, "you shall spread out to the west and to the east, to the north and to the south" expresses not a blessing of f, but rather a warning of exile and dispersion. God here promises Yaakov, or, more accurately, the Jewish people, "Behold, I will be with you, I will protect you wherever you go and will bring you back to this land." The promise here is the promise of the ultimate return from exile, rather than Yaakov's own return to Canaan after his sojourn in Lavan's house in Charan.

This approach to these verses follows the general perspective with which several commentators viewed Yaakov's dream. The Ramban and Seforno explain the ladder in Yaakov's dream as symbolizing world history, which has seen many "angels," nations and empires, "ascending and descending." Yaakov's flight from Esav is seen as symbolic of Am Yisrael's exile, over the course of which it witnesses the rise and fall of many empires. Appropriately, then, as part of this vision, Yaakov, representing the entirety of Am Yisrael, is given a promise of divine assistance throughout its long exile and a guarantee of its ultimate return to its homeland.

*******

Towards the beginning of Parashat Vayeitzei, the Torah tells that along Yaakov's journey from Be'er Sheva to Charan, "he came upon ['va-yifga'] a certain place" (28:11). A well-known Gemara in Masekhet Berakhot (26a) comments that the word "va-yifga" actually refers to prayer, and thus this verse tells that Yaakov Avinu instituted the evening prayer service, arvit.

The arvit service differs from the other two daily prayers – shacharit and mincha – in that the Gemara (Berakhot 27b) records a debate as to whether it is strictly required ("chova") or optional ("reshut"). In fact, Halakha follows the position of Rabbi Yehoshua that arvit is, essentially, an optional prayer. However, many Rishonim, including Tosefot (Berakhot 4b, 26a, 30b) and the Rambam (Hilkhot Tefila 1:6), make the point that in practice arvit must be treated as obligatory. According to Tosefot, the term "reshut" used to describe the "optional" nature of arvit does not really mean that one need not recite it; rather, it indicates that should a conflict arise between the recitation of arvit and a different mitzva, the other mitzva takes precedence. The Rambam, by contrast, writes that Am Yisrael has collectively accepted arvit as an obligatory prayer, and thus even if it was originally established as an optional service, today we must consider it an outright obligation.

Nevertheless, even the Rambam, who claims that arvit has transformed into an obligatory prayer service, treats arvit differently than he does shacharit and mincha. In Hilkhot Tefila (10:6), the Rambam discusses a situation where in the middle of shemoneh esrei one suddenly remembers that he had already recited this particular tefila. Must one stop his prayer, or may he continue with the shemoneh esrei and simply consider it a "tefilat nedava," a voluntary prayer, which Halakha permits provided that the worshipper add some new content into the prayer? The Rambam rules that essentially, one may not continue with the shemoneh esrei. Since he had recited the prayer heretofore with the intent that he recites an obligatory service, he can no longer change his mind and have his prayer considered a voluntary service. Shemoneh esrei is, in a certain sense, an indivisible prayer unit; therefore, it cannot change colors, so-to-speak, in the middle, with the first half having been recited as an obligatory service, while the second half takes on a status of a voluntary service. The exception to this rule, the Rambam writes, is arvit. Since from the outset one recites arvit as an optional service, nothing changes with respect to this prayer's status once he realizes that he has already recited arvit earlier. Therefore, he may continue with his recitation. The Ra'avad, however, disagrees, and seems to require the person to stop in this case even when dealing with arvit.

As the Kesef Mishneh explains, the Ra'avad's position stems naturally from the fact that arvit has been universally accepted as an obligatory prayer. Once we consider arvit mandatory, why should it be any different than shacharit or mincha? The Ra'avad therefore rules that just as one must stop his shacharit or mincha service once he realizes that he had already recited the given service, so must he bring his arvit prayer to a halt in such a case. Why, then, does the Rambam allow one to continue arvit if he remembers that he had previously recited it?

Rav Chayim Brisker, in his work on the Rambam, explains that the Rambam and Ra'avad debate what exactly happened when Am Yisrael collectively took upon itself the obligation of reciting arvit. According to the Ra'avad, Am Yisrael made the decision to look upon arvit as a mandatory service. Though Rav Chayim does not resort to this formulation, we might go so far as to say that in the Ra'avad's view, it was decided to adopt the position of Rabban Gamliel, that arvit was in fact instituted as an obligatory prayer service. Therefore, arvit becomes the same as shacharit and mincha. (Later in his discussion, however, Rav Chayim proceeds to suggest an entirely different explanation of the Ra'avad's view.) The Rambam, however, maintained that Am Yisrael did not accept upon itself the recitation of arvit as an obligatory service. Rather, it was decided that we would commit ourselves to recite arvit every night. This decision had no effect whatsoever on the fundamental, Halakhic nature of the arvit service. It remained optional, a voluntary tefila, only we committed ourselves to recite this optional prayer every night. Therefore, according to the Rambam, when one begins reciting arvit he does so with the intention of reciting a voluntary prayer, and therefore one may continue even if he remembers that had already recited arvit.

Indeed, in at least two other places in Hilkhot Tefila the Rambam draws a practical distinction between arvit and the other prayer services, despite the fact that we treat arvit as obligatory. In 3:7, the Rambam writes that we need not be as meticulous regarding the time for the recitation of arvit as we are with respect to the other prayer services, since arvit is not, strictly speaking, obligatory. And in 9:9, the Rambam points to the "optional" quality of arvit as the reason for the absence of chazarat ha-shatz (the chazan's repetition) from the arvit service. The repetition was established so that the chazan can fulfill the obligation on behalf of those who cannot recite the prayers themselves; since arvit is optional by nature, Chazal felt it unnecessary to institute a repetition for arvit.

Clearly, then, according to the Rambam, arvit does not lose it "optional" nature even after Am Yisrael has accepted upon itself the obligation to recite arvit each night.

******

Parashat Vayeitzei tells of Yaakov's departure from Canaan and his famous dream in which God assures him that He will protect him and bring him back safely to Canaan. In response to God's promise, Yaakov makes a famous vow, promising that if God provides his needs and brings him back to his homeland, "ve-haya Hashem li le-Elokim" – "then Hashem will be for me a God" (28:21). (We should note that a major controversy exists among the commentators as to whether this phrase is part of Yaakov's condition, and the promise begins only in the next verse, or if this clause begins Yaakov's promise. For purposes of this devar Torah, we will assume the second possibility, that this phrase expresses Yaakov's first promise to which he commits should God satisfy the conditions set in the previous verse and in the first half of this verse.)

The obvious question arises as to what precisely Yaakov meant when he promised that God will "be his God." Isn't the Almighty every human being's God, whether or not the human being so chooses? What kind of commitment is Yaakov making?

Adding to the mystery surrounding this verse is a passage in Bereishit Rabba (70), which records God's response to this promise of Yaakov. God proclaims, "You said, 'Hashem will be for me a God' – I swear that all the goodness, blessings and consolations that I grant to your offspring will be given only with this e… " The Midrash proceeds to cite several instances where the prophets introduce their visions of the future redemption with the word "ve-haya" – the same word Yaakov uses in this verse. Apparently, the Midrash understood this word "ve-haya" as containing some deep, homiletic meaning beyond its straightforward meaning of "will be." So profound is this word, that its use by Yaakov as part of his vow yields considerable reward thousands of generations henceforth, and its use by the prophets as part of their depiction of Israel's redemption somehow adds a particularly meaningful dimension to this process. Wherein lies the significance of this word in the contexts of Yaakov's vow and the prophets' visions of the ultimate redemption?

Instinctively, we would perhaps look to other Midrashic sources where the deeper meaning of the word "ve-haya" is presented. Indeed, Rav Hersh Yaar, in his "Chamudei Tzvi" (New York, 1957), invokes the famous passage in the Midrash (beginning of Ester Rabba and elsewhere) claiming that the word "ve-haya" has a connotation of simcha (joy). On this basis, Rav Yaar explains, Chazal arrived at a homiletic interpretation of Yaakov's promise. He promises not that the Almighty will be his God – for, as mentioned, this would happen regardless of his promise – but rather that having Hashem as his God will be his primary source of joy and satisfaction. Yaakov declares that if God provides him with his physical needs, still, he will find joy not in his material success and comfort, but rather in his relationship with the Almighty, in the fact that "the Lord will be my God."

We now understand as well God's response, that He will redeem Yaakov's offspring with the same terminology of "ve-haya." The ultimate redemption can unfold either through a difficult process of hardships and suffering, culminating with peace and prosperity, or with nothing but pure joy and celebration. In reward for Yaakov's commitment to make the service of God his primary source of happiness, the prophets foresee an entirely joyous redemption process.

What this Midrash establishes, then, is a relationship between our attitude towards Torah and mitzvot and the Almighty's attitude towards us, as it were. To the extent to which we approach our religious obligations with fervor and enthusiasm, rather than with lethargic indifference, God will, in turn, fulfill His obligations towards us, so-to-speak, in a manner reflecting only joy and celebration, without the grueling process of suffering followed by redemption.

******

The haftara for Parashat Vayeitzei, according to many traditions, is the final section in Hoshea (12:13-14:10). The prophet proclaims God's warning to the Kingdom of Israel, "I am for them like a lion, like a leopard I lurk on the way" (13:7). According to most commentators, this verse forewarns the vicious attacks of foreign nations that God will unleash against Israel. In response to their having "forgotten Me," as the prophet notes in the previous verse, God will transform, so-to-speak, from a loving, caring Father into a "lion" and "leopard" to "rip open the casing of their hearts" (verse 8).

Others, however, understand this verse as referring not to God's own warning of the events to come, but rather to Benei Yisrael's misperception of God. Meaning, Benei Yisrael mistakenly see Him as a violent animal poised to attack them. According to the Malbim, the prophet here seeks to contrast the nation's reaction to their success with their response to their suffering. As the previous verse describes, Benei Yisrael took the credit for their material achievements: "When they grazed, they were sated; when they were sated, they grew haughty; and so they forgot Me." Although "I looked after you in the desert, in a thirsty land" (verse 5), and throughout their sojourn in the wilderness Benei Yisrael had no choice but to credit the Almighty for their very existence, once they entered Canaan they developed an exaggerated sense of self-sufficiency. The people's overconfidence in their own efforts led them to deny their dependence on the Almighty's grace, to the point where they forgot Him entirely. Yet, when calamity struck, they immediately attributed their suffering to God and accused Him of acting towards them like a "lion" and "leopard." Whereas they attributed no significant role to God in their success and accomplishments, they suddenly blamed Him for their troubles and hardships.

Rav Mendel Hirsch, in his work on the Haftarot, also reads this verse as describing the people's perception of God, only develops his interpretation in a much different direction. Benei Yisrael liken the Almighty to a violent animal not in response to their troubles, but rather in their attitude to Torah and mitzvot. Rav Mendel writes:

Benei Yisrael looked upon God as an enemy who hurled upon them demanding, burdensome laws and restrictions that hindered their progress towards a better life and a better world. In this verse's final clause, God declares, "ke-namer al derekh ashur." Most commentators translate "ashur" as a verb meaning, "lurk," and thus interpret this phrase to mean, "like a leopard I lurk on the way." Rav Mendel, however, explains "ashur" as an adjective meaning, "well-trodden" or "much frequented." This phrase would then read, "as a leopard on a well-trodden road." The verse thus describes how in Benei Yisrael's eyes, their own path would lead them to happiness and success, but God, through His laws and restrictions, came upon them to steer them off this path and bring their progress to a halt:

The prophet here thus bemoans the nation's fundamental outlook on Torah and mitzvot. They perceived their religion not as the ideal path to follow, as the road to truth and sanctity, but rather as an obstacle to the goals they felt they could independently pursue.

******

In God's revelation to Yaakov as he flees from Canaan, as told towards the beginning of Parashat Vayeitzei, God promises him, "you shall spread out to the west and to the east, to the north and to the south… " Chazal, in Masekhet Shabbat (118a-b), note that this promise is unique among God's promises to the patriarchs. In His promise to Avraham, God promised the land on which Avraham treaded (13:17); to Yizchak, God promised "all these lands" (26:4) – referring to a definite, albeit large, piece of territory. In Yaakov's dream, however, he is promised infinite expansion in all directions; God sets no limit on how far east, west, south and north Yaakov's offspring will expand. Chazal describe this unique promise as a "nachala beli metzarim" – a territory without boundaries.

On this basis, the Gemara arrives at an intriguing interpretation of a well-known verse in Sefer Yeshayahu, one which many have the custom of including in the Shabbat morning kiddush recitation. The prophet promises, "If you call the Shabbat 'delight'… then… I will let you enjoy the heritage of your father Yaakov" (Yeshayahu 58:13-14). The Gemara comments: "Whoever delights on Shabbat is given a portion without boundaries." Meaning, when the prophet promises those who "delight" on Shabbat "the heritage of Yaakov," it refers to Yaakov's unique portion, the extraordinary blessing he received of limitless territory.

What exactly does "limitless territory" mean in this context, and why does the Gemara assign this as the reward for one who "delights" on Shabbat?

The "Iyei Ha-yam," a commentary on the Aggadic portof the Talmud, explains that the Gemara here refers to the underlying outlook which leads one to enjoy himself on Shabbat. For many Shabbat-observers, the prohibitions of Shabbat pose a threat to their livelihood, or at least lower their potential profit. Many such people look upon Shabbat as anything but a "delight," they cannot fully enjoy their observance of Shabbat as they fret over the money they cannot earn during these twenty-five hours. If someone places too much trust in his own efforts in securing a livelihood, and fails to acknowledge God's role in his earnings, he will full uneasy about Shabbat. Therefore, though he will be rewarded for his observance, his reward will have a limit – it will be restricted to that which the individual can achieve through his own efforts. By contrast, the person who truly believes in God's ultimate control over him and his ability to work and earn a living, can truly enjoy Shabbat. To him the Gemara refers when it speaks of "whoever delights on Shabbat." Since such a person places his trust in the Almighty, rather than in his own efforts, his reward will come straight from the Almighty; naturally, then, his reward will be "boundless," as it comes from a source with no limits or restrictions.

A different approach to this Gemara is taken by Rav Barukh Epstein, in his "Torah Temima" to this verse in Parashat Vayeitzei. The Torah Temima takes note of the particular terminology used in the Gemara to describe the one who "delights" on Shabbat: "ha-me'aneg et ha-Shabbat." This literally means, "the one who delights the Shabbat." It refers not to the person who enjoys himself on Shabbat (as the "Iyei Ha-yam" explained), but rather to the one who brings delight and honor to the Shabbat itself. This person does not simply eat and rest and enjoy himself on Shabbat, but uses the Shabbat day for spiritual pursuits, as well. Only then does one earn a "boundless portion." Physical enjoyment on Shabbat is naturally rewarded with physical and material blessing. But a blessing of this kind is, by nature, limited; there is a limit to how much food and drink a person can enjoy, and how much money a person can use. Spiritual enjoyment on Shabbat, however, yields limitless reward. For spiritual blessing has no limit; there is never an end to spiritual growth and development. It is therefore the person who "brings delight to the Shabbat" who earns the unique blessing of Yaakov, the "nachala beli metzarim."

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