Surf A Little Torah
Yeshivat Har Etzion

PARASHAT VAYISHLACH

Rav David Silverberg

            Parashat Vayishlach tells of Yaakov's return to Canaan after twenty years in the service of his uncle and father-in-law, Lavan, in the distant region of Padan Aram.  Upon returning to Canaan, Yaakov had two immediate responsibilities: fulfilling the vow he had made during his flight from Canaan, to establish a beit Elokim ("house of God") at Bet-El (see 28:22), and returning to his father, who had settled in Chevron.  We would therefore have expected Yaakov to travel directly to Beit-El, fulfill his vow, and then proceed southward to Chevron to reunite with his father.

            Surprisingly, however, Yaakov first settles outside the city of Shekhem, where he purchases a lot of territory (33:18-19).  The ensuing story, of the rape of Dina and her brothers' destruction of the city, strongly suggests that Yaakov and his family had established a permanent residence in the area.  The governor of Shekhem, Chamor, in requesting Dina's hand in marriage for his son, extends to Yaakov an offer of business and social relations: "You will marry with us: you will give your daughters to us, and you will take our daughters; you will live with us: the land shall be before you – settle and do commerce with it, and take possession of it" (34:9-10).  Chamor was clearly under the impression that Yaakov and his family had settled near Shekhem as a long-term arrangement.  Had Yaakov settled there for only a brief period, as a way station along his trip to Chevron, it seems hardly likely that Chamor would invite him to become business and marriage partners.  And besides, as mentioned, Yaakov purchased a plot of land, which certainly indicates that he planned on settling there permanently.

            The question thus arises, why did Yaakov settle in Shekhem, before going to Beit-El to fulfill his vow and to Chevron to reunite with his father?

            Rabbi Menachem Leibtag (http://tanach.org/breishit/vayish3.htm) suggests resolving this question by boldly postulating that the Torah's narrative in this parasha does not follow chronological sequence.  The events recorded after the Shekhem narrative, namely, God's prophecy to Yaakov at Bet-El, the birth of Binyamin and Rachel's death, and Yaakov's arrival in Chevron, occurred before the story of Shekhem.  In truth, Yaakov, as we would have expected, proceeded directly to Beit-El, where he erected a monument, and thereafter he journeyed to Chevron, during which time Rachel died.  After reuniting with his father, Yaakov settled with his family outside Shekhem, until God instructed Yaakov to move away from Shekhem and erect an altar in Beit-El.  (Essentially, this theory claims that the section of 35:9-29 belongs chronologically before chapter 34.)

            Rabbi Leibtag draws support for his theory from the opening verse of the section that tells of the prophecy at Beit-El and Rachel's death: "God appeared to Yaakov once again, when he arrived from Padan Aram…" (35:9\).  The Torah describes this event as having occurred "when he arrived from Padan Aram," strongly indicating that it took place shortly, if not immediately, after Yaakov's return to Canaan.  However, according to the sequence of events as they appear in the Torah, Yaakov had already settled outside Shekhem, where his daughter was raped and his sons' ransacked the city, and he had then traveled with his family to Beit-El.  Why would the Torah date this event as occurring "when he arrived from Padan Aram" if Yaakov had already lived for some time in Canaan?  This verse becomes more easily understood once we claim that this incident occurred earlier, immediately upon Yaakov's arrival in Canaan.  Likewise, shortly before his passing, Yaakov recalls Rachel's death and refers to this tragedy as occurring "when I arrived from Padan" (Bereishit 48:7), reinforcing our suspicion that these events transpired earlier than the point at which they appear in the narrative, soon after Yaakov's return to Canaan.

            In the coming days we will be"H discuss this theory further.

******

            Yesterday, we discussed the question as to why Yaakov, upon returning to Canaan, first settles in Shekhem, before proceeding to Beit-El, where he had promised to establish a beit Elokim, and before reuniting with his father in Chevron.  As we saw, Rabbi Menachem Leibtag, in his internet shiurim (http://tanach.org/breishit/vayish3.htm), suggested that in truth, Yaakov settled in Shekhem only after erecting a monument in Beit-El and visiting his father in Chevron, and the Torah's presentation of the sequence of events does not follow chronological order.

            Among the advantages of this bold theory is that it results in Shimon and Levi being at an older age at the time when they took up arms against the male population of Shekhem.  Let us try calculating how old Shimon and Levi were upon Yaakov's return to Canaan.  Recall from Parashat Vayetze that Yaakov worked a total of twenty years for Lavan before returning to Canaan (31:41), and he married Leah after the first seven years (see 29:20-25).  Thus, even if we should assume that Leah conceived with her oldest son immediately, and bore Shimon and Levi – her second and third children – very soon thereafter, Shimon and Levi could have been no older than eleven or twelve, or so, when Yaakov left Lavan's home thirteen years after his marriage to Leah.  According to Chazal (Megila 17a), Yaakov spent a year and a half in Sukkot (see 33:17) before crossing into Eretz Yisrael, and thus Shimon and Levi were approximately thirteen years of age when Yaakov returned to his homeland.

It seems difficult to imagine, Rabbi Leibtag contended, that two boys of this age would be capable of waging the kind of battle in Shekhem that Shimon and Levi waged to avenge their sister's rape.  If, however, we claim that the incident of Shekhem occurred several years later, after Yaakov journeyed to Beit-El and then to Chevron, Shimon and Levi are in their late teens or so at the time of their assault on Shekhem, an age that far better suits such a bold and violent measure.

What more, this theory also helps explain Shekhem's attraction to Dina.  Dina was Leah's seventh child (see 30:21), and the Torah records a gap between the births of Leah's fourth and subsequent children (see 29:35).  Thus, Dina could have been born no earlier than the eighth year or so of Leah's marriage to Yaakov, or five years before Yaakov's return to Canaan.  If Yaakov settled in Shekhem just one or two years after leaving Padan Aram, it would be hard to explain Shekhem's lustful desire for Dina, who was all of seven years of age, at most.  Once we explain that Yaakov spent several years in Beit-El and Chevron before settling in Shekhem, Dina becomes a young teenager at the time when she "went to see the daughters of the land" and fatefully caught Shekhem's attention.

Of course, this theory must provide some explanation for why the Torah would arrange the events out of chronological sequence.  Rabbi Leibtag suggests a number of possible reasons, the simplest of which being that the Torah sought to combine Yaakov's experiences in Shekhem into a single narrative.  Before the story of Dina's capture by Shekhem, the Torah tells of Yaakov's purchase of a plot of land outside the city, where he also erected an altar to God (33:19).  Rabbi Leibtag suggested that Yaakov made Shekhem his first stop in Canaan to follow in the footsteps of his grandfather, Avraham, who first stopped in Shekhem when he arrived in Canaan and erected an altar at that site (12:6-7).  Yaakov's purchase of a plot of land was likely an investment made in anticipation of his future, permanent settlement in the area.  The Torah perhaps wished, in the interest of clarity, to combine all of Yaakov's Shekhem-related experiences into a single narrative, and therefore presented the story of Dina immediately following the account of Yaakov's purchase of land outside Shekhem.

******

            In our previous two editions of S.A.L.T., we have discussed the theory posited by Rabbi Menachem Leibtag (http://tanach.org/breishit/vayish3.htm) concerning the sequence of events recorded in Parashat Vayishlach.  Rabbi Leibtag contended that although the Torah records Yaakov's experiences in Shekhem before his journey to Beit-El, the death of Rachel, and Yaakov's reunion with his father in Chevron, in truth, the story of Shekhem occurred later.  Yaakov first traveled to Beit-El, in fulfillment of the vow he had declared when he left Canaan some twenty years earlier.  He then proceeded towards Chevron to reunite with his father, and Rachel passed away along the way as she delivered her second son, Binyamin.  Only some time later did he return to the area of Shekhem to permanently settle there, and it was then that Dina was abducted.

            At least one Midrashic tradition, which is recorded in a number of sources, appears to lend support to Rabbi Leibtag's contention.  Targum Yonatan Ben Uziel (to 32:25) and Pirkei De-Rabbi Eliezer (chapter 37) tell that the angel, who assaulted Yaakov before he crossed the Yabok River, demanded that Yaakov donate one-tenth of his sons to God.  The angel reminded Yaakov of his promise to donate to God one-tenth of everything God gives him during his sojourn in Aram, and, the angel notes, Yaakov had since begotten twelve sons.  Yaakov "tithed" his children by first excluding the four firstborn sons, who were already consecrated by virtue of being firstborns, and then began counting from Shimon, according to age: Shimon, Levi, Yissakhar, Zevulun, Naftali, Asher, Binyamin, and then back to Shimon and Levi.  Levi was thus the "tenth" son, and the tribe of Levi was designated for the service of God.

            Oddly enough, these Midrashim include Binyamin among the sons of Yaakov, despite the fact that Binyamin is born only later, along Yaakov's route to Chevron.  Pirkei De-Rabbi Eliezer mentions that Rachel was pregnant at the time with Binyamin, and he was therefore included with his brothers for the purpose of "tithing" Yaakov's sons.  Of course, if Rachel had already conceived with Binyamin as Yaakov and his family made their way back to Canaan, the birth of Binyamin must have transpired shortly thereafter.  This seems possible only if we accept Rabbi Leibtag's theory, that Yaakov's journey to Chevron, along which Rachel passed away as she delivered Binyamin, took place earlier, before Yaakov's settlement in Shekhem.  (It should be noted that these sources would presumably disagree with the Gemara's comment in Masekhet Megila 17a that Yaakov spent a year and a half in Sukkot before his arrival in Shekhem.  Surprisingly, however, Targum Yonatan on 33:17 comments that Yaakov spent one year in Sukkot, which is very difficult to explain if Rachel had been pregnant with Binyamin beforehand.)

            Furthermore, the Zohar (vol. 1, p.158b) comments that Yaakov fled from Lavan's home when Rachel conceived with Binyamin.  This, too, seemingly compels us to conclude that Binyamin's birth occurred within the first nine months of Yaakov's return to Canaan, which seems difficult to accept if Yaakov first settled in Shekhem before embarking on the journey during which Binyamin was born.

******

            This week we have been discussing the possibility suggested by Rabbi Menachem Leibtag, in his internet shiurim (http://tanach.org/breishit/vayish3.htm), that the narrative in Parashat Vayishlach is presented out of chronological sequence.  Rabbi Leibtag suggested that the events recorded in the section 35:9-35:29, namely, Yaakov's prophecy at Beit-El, the birth of Binyamin/death of Rachel, and Yaakov's long-awaited return to his parents in Chevron, occurred before the story of Dina and Shekhem, which the Torah records earlier (chapter 34).  If we accept the sequence of events as they are told in the Torah, we must struggle to explain why Yaakov did not immediately proceed to Beit-El to fulfill his vow, and then to Chevron to reunite with his parents, upon returning from Padan Aram.  Rabbi Leibtag therefore raised the possibility that events are not recorded chronologically, and that Yaakov in fact went to Beit-El and then to Chevron before settling outside Shekhem.

            Yesterday, we mentioned a number of sources indicating that Rachel was pregnant with Binyamin already as Yaakov made his way from Padan Aram to Canaan, which would seemingly support the contention that Binyamin's birth occurred before the incident of Dina and Shekhem.  Today, we will see a number of sources which seem to explicitly indicate that Yaakov traveled to Beit-El before the story of Dina and Shekhem.

            The Gemara in Masekhet Megila (17a) asserts that Yaakov reunited with his father in Chevron two years after his departure from Lavan.  Along his return from Padan Aram, the Gemara claims, he spent eighteen months in Sukkot (see Bereishit 33:16), and another six months in Beit-El.  Rashi, commenting on this Gemara, explains, "He spent six months in Beit-El when he left Shekhem…"  Meaning, the six month-period to which the Gemara refers occurred after the story of Dina and Shekhem, and the Gemara held a tradition that when Yaakov traveled to Beit-El after the story of Dina (35:1), he lived there for six months.

Elsewhere, however, Rashi writes that Yaakov lived for a period in Beit-El before the incident of Shekhem.  In his commentary to Avot (5:21), Rashi cites the Midrashic tradition that Levi was thirteen years of age when he and his brother Shimon killed the male population of Shekhem.  To support this tradition, Rashi comments that "when you take into account the two years Yaakov spent in Beit-El," it indeed emerges that Levi was thirteen years old at the time of his attack on Shekhem.  Yaakov left Padan Aram thirteen years after his marriage to Leah, and, according to Seder Olam (chapter 2), Leah delivered each of her children after just seventh months of pregnancy.  Levi, Leah's third son, was thus born just about two years after her marriage to Yaakov, and hence Levi was eleven years of age when Yaakov left Padan Aram.  After the two years that "Yaakov spent in Beit-El," Levi was thirteen years of age, and it was at that point, Rashi claims, that Shimon and Levi killed the people of Shekhem.

            Rashi thus clearly held that Yaakov spent time in Beit-El before settling near Shekhem, as Rabbi Leibtag contended.

            The Midrash Lekach Tov, commenting on the story of Shekhem (34:25), likewise calculates the age of Shimon and Levi at the time of their assault on Shekhem, and claims that Levi was eleven when the family left the home of Lavan.  The story of Shekhem, the Midrash claims, occurred after the period of "two years when he [Yaakov] was offering sacrifices in Beit-El."  Like Rashi, the Midrash Lekach Tov held that Yaakov first proceeded to Beit-El upon returning from Canaan, before settling near Shekhem, and he spent two years "offering sacrifices."  Apparently, there was a Midrashic tradition that disputed the chronology espoused by the Gemara in Megila, according to which Yaakov spent eighteen months in Sukkot and then six months in Beit-El after the incident in Shekhem.  This tradition, which Rashi appears to have adopted in his commentary to Avot, and was accepted by the author of the Midrash Lekach Tov, held that the Torah's narrative does not follow chronological sequence, and Yaakov's pilgrimage to Beit-El occurred before he settled near Shekhem.  Immediately upon returning to Canaan, Yaakov proceeded to Beit-El and spent two years offering sacrifices in fulfillment of his vow.  Only thereafter did he settle near the city of Shekhem.

            We should note, however, one important difference between the position reflected in these sources and Rabbi Leibtag's theory.  According to Rashi in Avot and the Midrash Lekach Tov, Yaakov spent two years in Beit-El and then settled near Shekhem before reuniting with his father in Chevron.  Rabbi Leibtag suggested that Yaakov proceeded to Beit-El to fulfill his vow, and then continued southward to Chevron to see his parents.  He remained there for several years, and then moved with his family to Shekhem, at which point Shimon and Levi were in their late teens.  These sources provide a basis for the contention that Yaakov first visited Beit-El before settling near Shekhem, but not for the theory that he reunited with his parents before moving to Shekhem.

******

            We read in Parashat Vayishlach of the warm reunion between Yaakov and Esav, during which Esav declines the lavish gifts that Yaakov had previously sent him.  Yaakov, however, insistently asks that Esav accept his gift.  He implores, "Please take my blessing that has been brought to you, for God has been gracious to me, and I have everything" (33:11).

            Why does Yaakov refer to his gift as birkhati, "my blessing"?  In what sense does the term berakha denote a gift?

            Rashi explains that the word berakha often refers to a greeting that people extend upon meeting one another.  For example, a bit later in Sefer Bereishit (47:10) we read in the context of Yaakov's meeting with Pharaoh, "Va-yevarekh Yaakov et Pharaoh."  By extension, the term berakha is occasionally used in reference to a gift presented on the occasion of meeting another person.  Such was the gift that Yaakov presented to his brother, on the occasion of their reunion after so many years, and hence he refers to this gift with the term birkhati.

            The Ramban explains differently, claiming that gifts are referred to as berakha because "he sends from that with which God has blessed him."  Since a person gives as a gift that which he has received as a "blessing" from the Almighty, the term berakha is occasionally used to denote a gift.

            Rav Simcha Bunim Sofer (son of the Ketav Sofer), in his Sha'arei Simcha, suggests a slightly different approach (though which clearly has roots in the Ramban's explanation), associating Yaakov's use of the term berakha with his subsequent remark: "for God has been gracious to me, and I have everything."  Yaakov seeks to persuade Esav to accept his gift on the basis of his having "everything," the fact that he has been given far more than his basic necessities.  The righteous look upon their wealth as a berakha, a blessing from God, who has granted them more than what they require for their basic sustenance.  Yaakov intentionally refers to his gift as berakha so as to emphasize the point that he has already been given more than he needs, that the cattle and sheep he sent Esav were but a berakha, luxury items that Yaakov possessed beyond his basic needs of life.

            People by nature tend to never feel content with what they possess.  Few people are capable of honestly declaring, as Yaakov did, "yesh li kol" – "I have everything" – or of acknowledging that everything they have is a berakha – a "blessing" beyond what they need.  In fact, in this very exchange, Esav declines Yaakov's gift by claiming, "Yesh li rav" – "I have much."  Esav acknowledges that he has "much," whereas Yaakov recognizes that he possesses "everything."  We are to train ourselves to look upon what we have with the perspective of Yaakov, and feel grateful for the "blessings" that God has bestowed upon us, and acknowledge the fact that He has truly given us "everything."

******

            The Torah tells in Parashat Vayishlach of Yaakov's settlement outside the city of Shekhem, where he erects an altar and refers to it as "Kel Elokei Yisrael" – "Almighty, God of Israel."  The Midrash (Bereishit Rabba 79) detects within this reference a somewhat presumptuous exclamation on Yaakov's part: "You are Ruler of the upper world, and I am ruler of the lower world."  In response, the Midrash comments, God declared, "Even the sexton of the synagogue does not assume authority for himself – and you assume authority for yourself?!  Tomorrow your daughter will go out and be defiled…"  According to the Midrash, the unfortunate incident of Dina and Shekhem occurred – at least in part – as punishment for Yaakov's arrogance in proclaiming himself "ruler of the lower world."

            It is not entirely clear from where in this verse the Midrash inferred that Yaakov made this declaration.  Perhaps, Chazal reached this conclusion on the basis of the expression Elokei Yisrael, "God of Israel."  Elsewhere the Sages establish the rule that "The Almighty does not designate His Name upon the righteous while they are still alive."  Meaning, God does not refer to himself as "the God of so-and-so" unless that righteous individual has passed on.  Yaakov here refers to God as "God of Israel," viewing himself as deserving of this designation even during his lifetime, an honor that no tzadikim have ever earned.  Chazal thus detected within this reference a presumption of power and authority on earth, paralleled only by God's authority in the heavens.  Dina's abduction served as a stark reminder to Yaakov that he does not exert control and authority over his surroundings, as even his own daughter was not safe strolling about in the streets of Shekhem.

            Rav Eliezer David Greenwald, in his work Keren Le-David (Romania, 5690), adds that Yaakov's presumptuousness perhaps involved what he perceived as his family's state of spiritual perfection.  That Yaakov felt deserving of having his name associated with God perhaps reflected a sense of spiritual confidence to which he was not yet entitled.  God therefore responds, "Tomorrow your daughter will go out and be defiled…"  The Midrash here perhaps refers to another, more famous Midrashic passage, cited by Rashi (34:1), where the Sages cast a degree of blame upon Dina for this incident., describing her as a yetzi'anit, a reference to an inappropriate degree of social involvement in Shekhem.  Dina's abduction, for which she was partially to blame, served as a reminder to Yaakov that his family has yet to reach the point where he is worthy of being associated with the Name of God.  Despite the fact that, as the Torah testifies (33:18), Yaakov arrived in Shekhem "shalem," an adjective which Rashi interprets as referring in part to perfection, there was still more for him to achieve.  Until his children reached a similar degree of sheleimut, he has not reached the point where he deserved to have God be referred to as Elokei Yisrael.

******

            Towards the end of Parashat Vayishlach (36:20-30), the Torah presents a brief list of the families of Se'ir, who lived in the region that was ultimately captured and settled by Esav, where he established the kingdom of Edom.  Today we will look at several approaches that have been taken in explaining the purpose behind this section.

            Rashi (36:24) explains that this record is presented for the purpose of identifying Timna, a member of the ruling family of Se'ir (36:22), who was earlier introduced as the pilegesh (concubine) of Esav's son Elifaz.  Despite Timna's royal stature, she was given as a pilegesh to Elifaz.  This demonstrates how highly the people Se'ir valued the family of Avraham, as a family from the ruling class was prepared to have their daughter become a pilegesh to Avraham's great-grandson, rather than become a noblewoman among the people of Se'ir.  The Torah presented this genealogy for the purpose of demonstrating the respect and fame Avraham had earned in this region even several generations after his death.

            Ibn Ezra (36:20) suggests that since the Torah would later forbid instigating hostilities against the nation of Edom (Devarim 2:1-8), it was necessary to distinguish between the peoples of Se'ir and Edom.  After Esav's conquest of the territory of Se'ir, one might mistake the people of Se'ir for Edomites.  The Torah therefore carefully delineated the families of Se'ir so that Benei Yisrael would be able to differentiate between the Edomites, with whom they were forbidden to instigate warfare, and the people of Se'ir.  A similar explanation is cited in the work Ha-ketav Ve-ha-kabbala in the name of the Vilna Gaon.

            In a slightly different vein, the Rambam (Guide for the Perplexed 3:50) explained the purpose of this section in light of the command to annihilate the nation of Amalek (Devarim 25:19), which was founded by a grandson of Esav (36:12).  Esav became connected with the people of Se'ir through marriage, and Esav's children became the dominant influence in the area to the point where the entire population assumed the title "Amalekites."  The Torah therefore made a point of presenting the genealogy of Esav and Se'ir, so that Se'irites who were not members of the Amalekite clan would be spared Benei Yisrael's vengeance against the Amalekites.