Surf A Little Torah
Yeshivat Har Etzion

PARASHAT VAYETZE

By Rav David Silverberg

            Parashat Vayetze tells of Yaakov's escape to Padan Aram, where he would settle in the home of his uncle, Lavan, marry his daughters and build a family.  His first experience in Padan Aram was at the well outside the city, where he came upon three herds of sheep crouching near the well.  Yaakov asked why the shepherds did not allow the sheep to drink from the well, giving the impression that they had completed their shepherding duties for the day, at an unusually early hour.  They explained that many men were required to remove the stone covering the well, and they therefore had to wait for all the local shepherds to assemble (29:2-8).

            A possible explanation for the purpose behind this narrative emerges from the comments of Rav Shimshon Refael Hirsch (to 29:2):

Generally the cover of a well designed for public use, is made to be removed as easily as possible to facilitate its use for everybody.  But here – this introduces us to the character of the Arameans – no one trusted the other and nobody meant anybody else to have the slightest advantage.  One person might take a drink more than the other.  Hence they made the cover so heavy so that no person alone but only by their combined effort could the well be used.

According to Rav Hirsch, the heavy cover resulted from the mutual feelings of suspicion among the local population.  No one trusted the other with open access to the town's water resources, and they therefore devised a system where no one could access water without the presence of numerous other citizens.

            If so, then this brief account serves as an appropriate introduction to the ensuing story of Yaakov's experiences with his duplicitous uncle and father-in-law, Lavan.  We learn of the nature and character of the society in which Yaakov must now settle through their water distribution policy, which was borne out of an aura of mistrust.  Yaakov's conversation with the Aramean shepherds thus offers us a glimpse into the environment into which he is thrust, one where people scheme against each other and no one can trust his fellow citizen.

******

            Parashat Vayetze tells of Yaakov's marriage to his two cousins, Leah and Rachel.  The Torah writes, "The Lord saw that Leah was despised, and so He opened her womb, whereas Rachel was barren" (29:31).  Several Midrashim and commentators address the question as to whether Yaakov truly "despised" Leah as this verse indicates.  For one thing, the prospect of Yaakov "despising" his less attractive wife appears, at least at first glance, inconsistent with the piety and purity generally associated with the patriarch.  But moreover, the immediately preceding verse tells that Yaakov "in fact love Rachel more than Leah," clearly suggesting that his love for Rachel exceeded his affection for Leah, but that he indeed love Leah, as well.

            Bereishit Rabba (71) writes explicitly that Yaakov felt resentment towards Leah for tricking him, by disguising as Rachel on what was to be Yaakov and Rachel's wedding night.  According to this Midrash, Yaakov considered divorcing Leah, but then retracted his decision when he saw that she was blessed with children.  In a slightly different vein, the Tanchuma Yashan (cited in Torah Sheleima, note 90) tells that Yaakov resented Leah because she criticized him for having fooled his father by disguising as Esav to receive Yitzchak's blessing. 

            According to these Midrashim, it appears that Yaakov indeed "despised" Leah, at least on some level.  These Midrashim do not – at least not explicitly – address the two questions we raised earlier.

            The Gemara (Masekhet Bava Batra 123a), by contrast, dismisses out of hand the possibility that Yaakov actually despised his righteous wife.  It therefore explains the verse to mean not that Leah was "despised," but rather that Leah herself despised the conduct of Yaakov's brother, Esav.  The relevance of her feelings towards Esav likely involves a different comment of the Gemara there, that Leah's townspeople thought that she was destined to marry Esav, and Rachel would marry Yaakov.  As the Or Ha-chayim explains (in his commentary to this verse), her inability to conceive from Yaakov would have been seen as "proof" of her destiny to marry Esav; God therefore saw to it that she would bear many children from Yaakov, to dispel the misconception that Esav was her predetermined soul mate.

            The Or Ha-chayim himself suggests a different explanation of this verse, claiming that only God "saw that Leah was despised," but nobody else – not even Leah herself.  According to the Or Ha-chayim, Leah did not feel despised, "but rather she thought that she was not loved singularly."  Leah sensed that she shared Yaakov's affection with Rachel, and in this sense she felt "despised" – not that Yaakov actually "despised" her, but rather that he did not love her exclusively.

            Rav Shimon Schwab (cited by Rav Yissachar Frand -www.torah.org/learning/ravfrand/5765/vayeitzei.html) commented on the Or Ha-chayim's analysis, and explained that the nature of a spousal relationship is such that if the love from one to the other is not exclusive and unique, it may be described as "hate."  If a husband has feelings for another woman that resemble his affection for his wife, he can be said to "despise" his wife, even if he does not actually "hate" her.  In the framework of this kind of relationship, the absence of singular affection amounts to a type of "hate."

            Rav Schwab applied this theory to a Jew's relationship to the Almighty, which is very often likened to that between husband and wife.  If a Jew displays equal devotion to something or someone else, be it his career or some form of entertainment, he in a certain sense "hates" God.  Am Yisrael's bond with the Almighty precludes the possibility of competing loyalties or emotional attachments.  As much as one finds gratification in whatever it is that he does, he must ensure to reserve his primary loyalty and love for the Almighty, and not share that unique relationship with anything else.

*******

            Towards the beginning of Parashat Vayetze we read of Yaakov's pledge to God as he leaves his homeland, that should he return safely, he will make an offering of the value of one-tenth his assets: "ve-khol asher titen li aser a'aserenu lakh" (28:22).  The Gemara in Masekhet Ketubot (50a) finds an allusion in this verse to a halakhic principle known as "kol ha-mebazbez al yebazbez yoter mi-chomesh" – a person should not spend more than one-fifth of his property on charitable causes, lest he one day lose his remaining assets and fall into poverty.  Although Yaakov here pledges just one-tenth of his property, the double expression he employs in formulating his pledge – "aser a'aserenu" – subtly alludes to two tenths, or one-fifth.  The Gemara sees in this formulation a hint to the maximum amount a person may donate to charitable causes.  As codified by the Rama (in Shulchan Arukh, end of O.C. 656), this principle applies even to the performance of mitzvot asei; a person should not spend more than twenty percent of his assets to be able to perform a mitzva (such as to purchase the four species on Sukkot; a notable exception is Chanukah candles, for which one must even sell his clothing.)  It should be emphasized that this applies only to mitzvot asei; to avoid a mitzvat lo ta'aseh – a Torah prohibition – one must be prepared to forfeit all his money.  Only a threat to life permits the violation of a mitzvat lo ta'aseh.

            Rav Chayim Leib Eizenstein, in his Peninim Me-bei Midresha (Jerusalem, 2005), raises the question of how this halakha may be reconciled with a Mishna at the end of Masekhet Nega'im (14:13).  The Mishna discusses a case of two metzora'im who could not tell apart the animals they designated for their respective sacrifices, which are required as part of a metzora's purification process.  Normally, in such a case both sacrifices would be offered, and they would both thereby fulfill their obligations.  But in the case discussed in the Mishna, one of the metzora'im died after one of the sacrifices was offered.  The remaining metzora now faces a dilemma: he cannot bring the remaining sacrifice, because it might belong to the deceased metzora, but neither can he bring a different animal, because if the remaining animal is indeed his sacrifice, then the offering of the new animal would transgress the halakha known as meivi chulin la-azara.  The Mishna records Rabbi Yehoshua as recommending that the metzora write a contract giving away all his assets to another person, leaving him destitute.  Now a poor metzora brings a different, cheaper sacrifice for his purification process than do normal metzora'im.  Therefore, after giving away his property, this metzora would now be entitled to bring that cheaper sacrifice and earn atonement.

            The question arises, why does this tactic not violate the provision that one may not spend more than twenty percent of his property to fulfill a mitzva?

            Rav Eizenstein mentions one possible explanation that emerges from the position of Rav Yehonatan Eibshitz, in his Ye'arot Devash (2:14), that the law of al yebazbez yoter mei-chomesh applied only after the Temple's destruction.  When the Beit Ha-mikdash stood, one could rely on the Almighty's benevolence and spend even more than twenty percent of his property to fulfill a mitzva.  Obviously, this Mishna speaks of a metzora bringing sacrifices, during the time of the Temple.  However, as Rav Eizenstein notes, the Vilna Gaon (Shenot Eliyahu, Pei'a 1:11) and the Maharim Shick (Y.D. 230) describe this halakha as a halakha le-Moshe mi-Sinai – an oral tradition from Sinai – which presumably applied even during the time of the Temple.

            Another answer, Rav Eizenstein continues, arises from a theory advanced by the Ba'al Ha-tanya (the first Rebbe of Lubavitch), in his Shulchan Arukh Ha-Rav (Iggeret Ha-teshuva, 3), where he writes that one may give even a higher percentage of his property to charity to achieve atonement.  Now Rashi, in his commentary to Masekhet Menachot (91b), writes that the sin-offering offered by a metzora serves as atonement for his having transgressed one of the sins for which tzara'at serves as punishment.  Naturally, then, a metzora is entitled to spend even more than one-fifth of his property to fulfill this mitzva.

            A much simpler answer, perhaps, is that in the situation discussed in this Mishna the metzora will not actually lose his money.  The Tiferet Yisrael writes explicitly that Rabbi Yehoshua's recommendation was for the metzora to write a contract giving his assets to a friend or relative who will assuredly return the property after the sacrifice is offered.  Since the metzora will, practically speaking, lose no money through this process, there is no concern that he will fall into poverty as a result of spending more than twenty percent of his property, and this tactic is thus permitted.

******

            Parashat Vayetze tells of Lavan's cruel deception of Yaakov, promising to give him his daughter Rachel's hand in marriage after seven years of work as a shepherd, and then giving him his other daughter, Leah, instead.  After this episode, Lavan agrees to allow Yaakov to marry Rachel, as well, a week later, in exchange for yet another seven full years of work.  Yaakov agrees, and, the Torah writes, "He worked for him for yet another seven years" (29:30).  Rashi comments, "Just as the first ones were in loyalty, so were the last ones in loyalty, even though he came upon him with deceit."  The Torah alludes to a comparison, of sorts, between Yaakov's first and second terms of service, to emphasize that Lavan's trick had no impact on Yaakov's loyalty as an employee.  He worked during the second set of seven years with the same devotion and alacrity with which he served Lavan for the first seven years.

            Rav Yerucham Lebovitz, in his Da'at Torah, elaborates on the powerful message conveyed through this brief remark of Rashi.  He refers us in this context to the discussion in Mesilat Yesharim of the danger that arises in situations where certain factors might lead one to justify compromising his standards.  People have an innate tendency to soothe an otherwise nagging conscience by finding various justifications for their shortcomings.  Yaakov found himself in such a situation after his marriage to Rachel.  The extra seven years of work were made necessary by Lavan's cruelty; most people in this situation would see no reason to exert themselves beyond the lowest standard of service.  Yaakov, however, remained committed to fulfilling his duties as employee to the very best of his ability and the maximum standard of efficiency and responsibility.

            More specifically, however, Yaakov did not succumb to the natural effects of the emotional experience of victimization.  Not only is this emotion among the most powerful human emotions, it also comes with an inherent, built-in justification for any measures conjured up by the victim's vengeful instincts.  Victimization tends to ipso facto render obsolete usual moral constraints, as the victim feels no sense of moral obligation to the offender.  Yaakov's example teaches that falling victim does not sanction lowering ethical standards.  Rav Yerucham cites in this context the remark of Ben Azai (Bereishit Rabba, 24:8), "You shall not say: Since I have been humiliated, my fellow shall be humiliated along with me… If you do so, you must know whom you are humiliating – 'in the image of God He made him [man]'."  We are bidden to respect the divine image of even those who have done us wrong, and therefore Yaakov worked as a loyal and devoted employee of his unscrupulous father-in-law, despite the mistreatment he suffered at his hands.

*******

            Towards the beginning of Parashat Vayetze we read of Yaakov's famous dream, in which he beheld a prophetic vision of a ladder along which "angels of God" ascended and descended.  Numerous different approaches have been taken to explain the symbolic meaning of this vision and to identify its relevance to the message God conveys to Yaakov in this dream – namely, that a large nation will descend from him and inherit Canaan, and that Yaakov will safely return to his homeland.  Among the more famous interpretations is that of Rashi: "The angels that accompanied him in the Land do not leave outside the Land, and [so] they ascended to the heavens, and the angels of outside the Land descended to accompany him."  As Yaakov prepares to leave Canaan, the angels that have guarded and protected him until this point depart and give way to the angels assigned to him during his sojourn outside his homeland.

            What message is conveyed through this vision of the angels changing shifts, so-to-speak?  Why is the arrival of the "new guard" significant enough to show Yaakov in his first ever prophetic vision?

            Professor Nechama Leibowitz suggested that according to Rashi, Yaakov's dream conveys the message that the challenges an individual confronts in his homeland, in his familiar surroundings, are not the same as those he encounters in foreign, hostile environs.  The journey upon which Yaakov now embarks will present obstacles that Yaakov had never before come upon, issues he had never before dealt with, and situations he had never before handled.  He is thus told that his approach must now change as he prepares to confront the new challenges that lie ahead.

            Indeed, Yaakov after this dream is portrayed is a much different person than the Yaakov before the dream.  In his father's home, Yaakov is an "ish tam yosheiv ohalim," a "simple," or perhaps even "naןve," tent-dweller, who – though clever enough to "purchase" his brother's birthright – was reluctant to go ahead with his mother's scheme to deceptively seize Esav's blessings.  The Midrashim in particular highlight Yaakov's quiet devotion to his studies, contrasting him with Esav, the "man of the field," a person of aggression, assertiveness and cunning.

            After the dream, Yaakov is suddenly far more assertive and bold.  His first experience after his prophecy in Beit-El is his encounter with the shepherds of Charan, whom he scolds for what he perceives as their laxity in tending to their flocks.  More prominently, of course, he outwits even Lavan, the renowned swindler, amassing enormous wealth despite Lavan's efforts to sabotage his work and minimize his profits.

            Yaakov's dream, then, reminds us that not all tactics are suitable for every situation, and the best approach to new and changing realities may not necessarily correspond to the preferred courses of action of yesteryear.  While our laws, values and traditions must remain constant and unchanging, our approach to preserving them might have to change from one generation to the next.

******

            The opening verse of Parashat Vayetze tells, "Yaakov departed from Be'er Sheva, and went to Charan."  One might ask why the Torah finds it necessary to name the city from where Yaakov left – Be'er Sheva.  This is, after all, the city where Yitzchak and his family resided (see chapter 26), and it therefore seems fairly obvious that it was from this city that Yaakov departed when fleeing from his brother.

            The Midrash (Bereishit Rabba 68:6) implicitly addresses this question, and, as the Ramban explains (in his commentary to 28:17), it claims that Yaakov had lived in Chevron, and not in Be'er Sheva.  The Midrash explains that Yaakov went first to Be'er Sheva because it was there where his father, Yitzchak, had sought God's permission to leave Canaan and move to Egypt to escape famine (see 26:1-2).  Yaakov followed his father's lead and went to Be'er Sheva to receive the Almighty's permission before leaving to Charan.  The emphasis on Yaakov's departure from Be'er Sheva, then, highlights the fact that Yaakov left Chevron and first went to Be'er Sheva to receive God's consent for his journey outside the Land.

            A different passage in Bereishit Rabba appears to resolve this question differently, finding significance in the actual words, "Be'er Sheva."  This name originates from the mutual oath – shevu'a – taken by Avraham and the Philistine king Avimelekh to one another (see 21:31).  According to the Midrash, Yaakov fled from the shevu'a, from the prospect of another oath with the Philistine king.  Avraham's treaty with Avimelekh, the Midrash explains, guaranteed the Pelishtim seven generations of unchallenged possession of the land, a period during which Avraham's descendants would make no attempt to seize Canaan.  (Benei Yisrael's conquest of Eretz Yisrael began seven generations after that treaty.)  Yaakov feared that Avimelekh would impose yet another agreement, further delaying his offspring's conquest of the land for another seven generations.  He thus fled from "Be'er Sheva" – from the prospect of yet another oath to Avimelekh.

            Rav Yehuda Leib Graubart, in his Yabia Omer (Toronto, 1936), suggests yet another explanation for this emphasis on Be'er Sheva as Yaakov's point of departure.  As mentioned, this city was so named because it served as the site of Avraham's treaty with Avimelekh.  Yitzchak likewise entered into an agreement with Avimelekh at this same site (end of chapter 26).  Be'er Sheva thus emerges as the city of peace with foreign peoples, the city of tranquility and stability, where old conflicts are resolved and peaceful relations are finally achieved.  And yet, just one generation later, Yaakov must flee from this very city to escape his brother's vengeance.  The Torah here thus underscores the irony in Yaakov's frantic escape from Be'er Sheva, the city that had become synonymous with peace and tranquility.

            This verse, then, demonstrates the insufficiency of man's efforts and initiatives.  Though we are bidden to do what we must to promote our own safety and well-being, this verse reminds us that our efforts can only extend so far, and that situations can change so drastically in just the blink of an eye.  Only with the Almighty's assistance will our efforts yield everlasting results.

******

            The Gemara in Masekhet Megila (17a) calculates the number of years that transpired between the time Yaakov seized his brother's blessing from his father, and his arrival in Egypt many years later, at the age of one hundred and thirty (47:9).  The Gemara determines that Yaakov was sixty-three years of age when he received Yitzchak's blessing, and thus sixty-seven years elapsed from that point until he stood before Pharaoh.  However, in filling in the events of those sixty-seven years, the Gemara finds that fourteen years are unaccounted for.  On this basis the Gemara arrives at the famous conclusion that upon leaving Canaan, Yaakov spent fourteen years studying in the academy of Ever (a grandson of Noach).

            Maharsha raises a question concerning this conclusion in light of the opening verse of Parashat Vayetze, which tells that Yaakov "departed from Be'er Sheva and went to Charan."  The straightforward implication of this verse is that Yaakov journeyed directly from his hometown of Be'er Sheva to Charan, without making any fourteen-year stops in between.  To resolve this difficulty, Maharsha asserts, quite simply, that the academy of Ever was situated in Be'er Sheva.  Yaakov thus left his parents' home but remained within the city, studying at the yeshiva of Ever, and after fourteen years of study he left Be'er Sheva and headed towards Charan.

            Rav David Pardo, in his Maskil Le-David (to 28:11), also concludes on the basis of this verse that Ever's yeshiva was located in Be'er Sheva, and adds two interesting pieces of possible evidence.  First, Rashi (25:22) famously cites from the Midrash that when Rivka would pass the academy of Shem and Ever during her pregnancy, Yaakov – still an embryo – would push as if trying to exit the womb.  Assuming that Rivka and Yitzchak lived at that point in Be'er Sheva, this would prove that the academy of Shem and Ever (which became just the academy of Ever after Shem's passing) was situated in Be'er Sheva.  Furthermore, the Maskil Le-David notes that the Midrash (Bereishit Rabba 68) employs the word nitman (literally, "buried" or "concealed") in describing Yaakov's stay at the yeshiva of Ever.  Presumably, this would mean that Yaakov was hiding from Esav during this period, perhaps because he was still in Esav's city, Be'er Sheva.  This approach also appears in the work Tzeror Ha-mor, which adds that Yaakov had the word spread that he had left to Charan, but in truth stayed in Be'er Sheva, hiding out in the academy of Ever.

            Of course, this entire discussion assumes that Yaakov had lived in Be'er Sheva before fleeing from Esav.  It should be noted that the Ramban, as we saw yesterday, maintains (based on a comment in the Midrash) that Yitzchak's family lived at this point in Chevron, and not Be'er Sheva.

            A much different view is presented by the Tosafists, as cited in Panei'ach Raza and Moshav Zekeinim.  The Gemara in Masekhet Chulin (91b), cited by Rashi (28:17), writes that Yaakov traveled to Charan and then realized that he had passed the future site of the Temple without stopping to pray.  He therefore turned back and went to pray at the Temple site in Jerusalem, and it was there where he beheld the famous prophetic vision of the ladder and angels.  The Torah tells that after this prophecy, Yaakov went "artza benei kedem" – to the countries of the east.  According to the view presented in the Panei'ach Raza and Moshav Zekeinim, it is at this point when Yaakov enrolled in the academy of Ever.  For some reason, the experience of this prophecy led Yaakov to change his mind and go to study in the yeshiva rather than heading immediately towards Charan.  It is unclear why this prophecy would motivate Yaakov to make such a drastic change in plans.  It should also be noted that according to this view, the academy of Ever was located outside Canaan, to the east, an assumption that directly contradicts a passage in Seder Olam which states explicitly that Yaakov studied in Ever's academy in Eretz Yisrael.

(Taken from Rav Mordechai Frankel's Mayim Rabim)