Surf A Little Torah
Yeshivat Har Etzion

by Rav David Silverberg

Parashat Vayishlach tells of Yaakov's return to Eretz Canaan. Upon his return, he revisits the city he named Bet-El, where God appeared to him when he had initially fled Canaan over twenty years earlier. There in Bet-El, Yaakov erects a mizbei'ach – an altar (35:7), as well as a matzeiva – a monument (35:14). Much later in Chumash (Devarim 16:22), the Torah strictly forbids erecting a matzeiva, calling it "despised" by God. The Sifrei there notes that a matzeiva is "ahuva la-avot, senu'a la-banim" – "beloved for the fathers, despised for the children." Meaning, erecting these monuments to God was an admirable practice during the time of the patriarchs, something "beloved" by the Almighty, whereas for future generations it is strictly forbidden and "despised."

What exactly is the difference between a mizbei'ach and a matzeiva, and why did the status of matzeivot change so drastically?

The Ramban, in his commentary to Parashat Vayetze (28:18), points to two differences between a mizbei'ach and a matzeiva, one structural, the other procedural. A mizbei'ach, as we know from other sources, as well, is made from many stones, whereas a matzeiva is a single stone. Secondly, the Ramban writes, matzeivot were used specifically for "nesakhim" – libations. Twice Yaakov erects a matzeiva in Bet-El, once during his departure from Canaan, and once after his return, and in both instances he pours oil over it (28:18, 35:14; in the second instances, it appears that he poured wine, as well). A mizbei'ach, by contrast, is used for animal and meal offerings, as well. The Ramban speculates that the Canaanites had institutionalized the use of matzeivot as part of their pagan worship to a greater extent than they did altars. For this reason, then, the Torah strictly forbade the use of matzeivot while it sanctioned – and in fact obligated – the building and use of altars.

Rav Shimshon Refael Hirsch, loyal to his general approach of attributing symbolic significance to the laws and prohibitions of the Torah, explains the difference between a matzeiva and a mizbei'ach by unearthing the symbolic meaning of each. As mentioned, a matzeiva consists of nothing more than a single stone. The human being does nothing to this stone other than designate it for ritual use. A matzeiva, then, symbolizes the acts of God, divine power, human passivity and futility in relation to the Almighty's unlimited control. The matzeiva therefore served as a means of expressing man's gratitude to the Almighty and his attribution of all his success to Him. By contrast, the mizbei'ach, which man creates, represents human input and manipulation of the natural world. It is used for sacrifices – the symbol of man's absolute, limitless commitment and devotion to the service of God. It turns out, then, that through a matzeiva one expressed feelings of gratitude and appreciation, whereas the altar was used to express one's commitment to the active service of the Almighty.

For this reason, Rav Hirsch explains, the use of matzeivot became entirely forbidden after the giving of the Torah. Among the central messages of the Torah is that there can be no separation between passive recognition of God and the active service of God. Benei Yisrael's acceptance of the Torah meant their transformation from admirers to servants; loyalty to the Torah means that one is not only cognizant of God's power and authority, but enthusiastically willing to sacrifice of himself towards the service of God. Therefore, after Matan Torah, all offerings – including libations, the "matzeiva offerings" – must be brought specifically on a mizbei'ach, for at this point, feelings of thanksgiving and gratitude must be accompanied by sincere devotion and commitment to sacrifice.

******

Parashat Vayishlach describes Yaakov's confrontation with a mysterious assailant as he makes his way back towards Canaan. The Torah refers to the attack against Yaakov with the word, "vayei'avek" – "wrestled" (32:24). Chazal (Bereishit Rabba, 77) draw an association between this word and the word "avak" – dust. The Midrash comments on this verse, "This teaches that they raised dust that extended to the Throne of Glory." The dust that was kicked into the air during this confrontation rose to the heavens and soared all the way to the Almighty's Throne. What message does this Midrash seek to convey?

Rav Yehuda Leib Ginsburg, in his "Yalkut Yehuda," explains based on the approach taken by many commentators viewing this entire incident as symbolic of the future confrontations between Yaakov and Esav. (According to the Midrash, the anonymous attacker was the "sar," or heavenly angel, of Esav.) Just as Yaakov was forced to struggle for survival and ultimately emerged victorious, albeit after suffering a painful blow, so will Am Yisrael endure much suffering over the course of their struggle for survival, which will eventually end in triumph. The Midrash here observes that this struggle between Am Yisrael and its enemies will cover God's Throne of Glory with dust, as it were. During these periods of crisis and persecution, God's Throne will be concealed, it will appear as though He has left the earth and no longer concerns Himself with the plight of Benei Yisrael. (Interestingly, Rabbi Ginsburg published this volume in 1936; he wrote about the seeming concealment of God's kingship even before the outbreak of World War II.)

A different approach to this Midrash is taken by the Sha'arei Simcha, who interprets "dust" here as an allegorical reference to the human being, who was created from the dust of the earth (Bereishit 2:7). This Midrash comes to teach us how a human being, a physical creature made from earth, can ascend to the Throne of Glory, can elevate himself above his physical nature and ascend to greater heights than even those reached by the angels of heaven. Chazal found the answer in this verse: "A man wrestled with him." In a word – struggle. The dust of the earth soars to the Throne of the Glory through hard work, relentless, tireless effort, and uncompromising devotion to the goal. The way Yaakov stood his ground throughout that long night of battle, is the way a person can overcome his physical nature and transform himself into a spiritual being. There is no shortcut; the road to the "Throne of Glory" is laden with arduous struggles and, at times, painful wounds. But by investing enough effort, a human being has the capacity, like Yaakov, to rise to even greater heights than the angels, who are inherently spiritual beings and thus have no need to struggle to reach the heavens.

******

In one the most famous passages in his commentary to Chumash, Rashi, in the beginning of Parashat Vayishlach, presents a novel interpretation to Yaakov's message to Esav. According to the plain meaning of the verse, Yaakov simply informs Esav, "I have lived with Lavan and have stayed until now" (32:5). Rashi, however, commenting on the words, "im Lavan garti" ("I have lived with Lavan"), writes, "I have lived with Lavan – and I have observed the six hundred and thirteen commandments, and I did not learn from his evil conduct." Yaakov here emphasizes to his brother that despite his lengthy stay in Lavan's home and prolonged exposure to his influence and lifestyle, he nevertheless retained his commitment to all six hundred and thirteen commandments.

Several later writers have noted the seeming redundancy in Rashi's comments. Once Yaakov affirms that he observed all the commandments during his stay with Lavan, why must he add, "and I did not learn from his evil conduct"? Is it not obvious than anyone who remains devoted to God's commandments does not look to Lavan as an example to follow?

One answer is cited in the name of the work, "Maskil El Dal," which explains that Yaakov tells Esav that he did not learn anything at all from Lavan – even the positive lessons tone could have potentially extracted from Lavan's conduct. Lavan's enthusiastic endeavors to earn wealth and the efforts he invested towards this end could have served as an example of the type of efforts one should invest in far more sacred pursuits. Yaakov here claims that he wished to learn nothing at all from Lavan and to distance himself entirely from his behavior – to the point where he did not even draw the lessons that he perhaps could have from Lavan's lifestyle.

Needless to say, this idea leaves unanswered the question of why Yaakov did not want to learn anything at all from Lavan. After all, as the famous mishna in Pirkei Avot (2:1) establishes, "Who is wise? He who learns from all men." Presumably, then, Yaakov had no reason to refuse to learn anything at all from Lavan.

In fact, Rav Meir Shapiro of Lublin suggested the diametrically opposite interpretation of this passage in Rashi. Yaakov here bemoans the fact that he did not learn anything from Lavan. Although he indeed observed the mitzvot, he failed to learn from Lavan's example of enthusiasm and effort in pursuing one's goals.

The most likely interpretation of this passage, however, would seem to be the explanation cited in the name of Rav Yaakov Ruderman zt"l. Yaakov Avinu proclaims that he succeeded religiously in Lavan's home in two areas: he did not forsake the commandments, and he did not adopt Lavan's culture and lifestyle. For it is entirely possible for one to remain fully committed to the strictest standards of mitzva performance while still acting like "Lavan," while still inculcating and adopting the very worst the surrounding culture has to offer. Benei Yisrael's challenge in exile, when it lives among the gentiles, including many "Lavans," is not only to continue our observance of the Torah, but also to continue our observance of the general ideals and lifestyle of the Torah. Yaakov could have adopted Lavan's general conduct and values while still performing the commandments; but instead, as he tells Esav, "I did not learn from his evil conduct," and he remained fully committed to the ethics, values and lifestyle of kedusha that he had received from Avraham and Yitzchak.

******

Parashat Vayishlach tells the story of the abduction and rape of Yaakov's daughter, Dina, at the hands of Shekhem, the prince of the city bearing his name. The Torah describes Dina's brothers' response to the news as follows: "The men were distressed and very angry, because he had committed an outrage in Israel by lying with Yaakov's daughter – and this is not to be done" (34:7). Rashi interprets this verse to mean that the brothers were incensed for two reasons. First, Shekhem "committed an outrage in Israel by lying with Yaakov's daughter." The mistreatment of someone from the family of a person of Yaakov's stature was in itself an unforgivable crime. But additionally, "this is not to be done." Even regardless of Dina's family background, Shekhem's act was reprehensible. Rashi comments, based on the Midrash, "This is not to be done – to rape single girls, for the nations forbade sexual immorality upon themselves as a result of the deluge." Knowing that the flood descended upon the earth (at least in part) due to sexual indulgence, the nations adopted sexual norms which mankind generally observed, until Shekhem violated these accepted guidelines of conduct.

Commenting on Rashi, the Beit Ha-levi writes that the brothers suspected that Shekhem would justify his crime with the claim that he was unaware of Dina's prestigious family background. Therefore, the basic reason for their anger – "for he had committed an outrage in Israel" – was not sufficient grounds for their vindictive attack on the city of Shekhem that they will later launch. The Torah therefore makes the second point, as well, that "this is not to be done" – regardless of the victim's identity.

The Ramban, however, disagrees with the entire premise of this Midrash, that the nations adopted respectable standards of sexual morality after the flood. To the contrary, the Ramban writes, after the Torah issues the various prohibitions against immorality in Sefer Vayikra, it adds, "for it is by such that the nations that I am casting out before you defiled themselves" (Vayikra 18:24). The Torah thus attributes to the Canaanite peoples all the sexual offenses listed in that chapter in Sefer Vayikra, including adultery, incest and bestiality, and it is in response to these offenses that "the land spewed out its inhabitants" (ibid., verse 25). How, then, can Rashi claim that the nations maintained proper moral standards? Secondly, the Ramban adds, earlier in Sefer Bereishit we read of the experiences of Avraham and Yitzchak in the Canaanite city of Gerar, where the people would have killed them to take their wives, compelling them to pose as their wives' brothers, rather than husbands. Is this, asks the Ramban, the policy of a society that had taken upon itself respectable guidelines concerning sexual conduct?

The Ramban therefore explains the verse differently, claiming that "this is not to be done" continues the previous clause – "for he had committed an outrage in Israel… " It is the infringement upon the honor of Yaakov that the brothers deemed "not to be done."

Rav Eliyahu Mizrachi, in his work on Rashi's commentary, raises a difficulty against the Ramban's second argument. To the contrary, Rav Eliyahu Mizrachi contends, the incidents of Sara and Rivka actually prove Rashi's theory. So compliant were the Canaanites with the prohibition against adultery that they would kill a man whose wife they desired rather than simply take her by force. Needless to say, this reflects a sorrowful lack of respect for human life, let alone human dignity, but it does demonstrate their strict adherence to proper guidelines of sexual conduct. How, then, did the Ramban point to these incidents as proofs to his contention, that the Canaanite peoples never adopted any rules governing sexual morality?

Perhaps the simplest explanation of the Ramban is that adultery – relations with a married woman – is not the issue at hand. Shekhem did not seize a married woman, and therefore when Rashi speaks of his having violated accepted norms, he undoubtedly refers to the accepted norms concerning relations with unmarried girls. Indeed, Rabbenu Ovadya Bartenura, in his commentary to this verse, notes that the Midrash employs the phrase, "gidru atzman," literally, "they fenced themselves off." Generally, the verb "g.d.r." refers to an additional measure of stringency enacted so as to avoid a given violation. Rabbenu Ovadya Bartenura thus explains that according to this Midrash, the nations took it upon themselves to refrain from all non-marital relations, including with unmarried women (which is technically permitted for gentiles), so as to avoid transgressing the violation of adultery. Accordingly, the Ramban's proof is indeed convincing. The experiences of Avraham and Yitzchak in Gerar indeed prove that the nations were hardly exemplary models of morality when it came to relations with unmarried women. Though they indeed refrained from seizing married women, they were prepared to kill a husband so that they could take his wife, who would then be unattached.

How would Rashi respond to this challenge, as well as to the evidence brought by the Ramban from Sefer Vayikra, that the Canaanites were, indeed, sexually corrupt?

Rav Chaim Hirschensohn, in his "Nimukei Rashi" (Hoboken, NJ, 1929), explains that Rashi refers only to accepted and legislated standards, not necessarily to universally practiced guidelines. After the deluge, societies understood the value of sexual morality and enacted appropriate measures to encourage the observance of these standards. In practice, however, the Canaanites remained corrupt and indulgent. In fact, he adds, this is precisely why, as the Torah tells in Sefer Vayikra, their corruption resulted in their banishment from the land. If they were unaware of the value of a sexually disciplined life, then God would not have punished them for their corrupt practices. Specifically becasocieties had established certain guidelines, God punished the Canaanites for their widespread violation of and disregard towards these standards.

******

In Parashat Vayishlach we read of the dramatic meeting between Yaakov and Esav. After this meeting, the two brothers separate once again, with Esav proceeding to the land of Se'ir where he establishes the kingdom of Edom. Yaakov promises to later join his brother in Se'ir (33:14). As the Midrash, cited by Rashi, notes, nowhere in Tanakh do we read of Yaakov or his descendants relocating in Se'ir. The Midrash thus explains that Yaakov refers to the Messianic era, as foreseen by the prophet Ovadya, whose prophecy is read (by many communities) as the haftara for this parasha. In the final verse of Ovadya's brief prophecy, the prophet predicts, "Liberators shall march up on Mount Zion to wreak judgment on Mount Esau; and dominion shall be the Lord's." In other words, this final meeting between Yaakov and Esav has yet to occur; according to the Midrash, it will take place only in the end of days, at the time of the final redemption.

But while we know who Yaakov's descendants are, it is not immediately clear to whom the verse refers when it speaks of "Edom." Who are the offspring of Esav today, upon whom Benei Yisrael will ultimately "wreak judgment"?

In many Midrashic sources, Chazal refer to the Roman Empire as "Edom," and consider the Romans the descendants of Esav. After the fall of the Roman Empire, traditional authors have pointed to the western, Christian world at large as the descendants of Esav. Thus, according to many commentators on Ovadya (such as Radak, Abarbanel and Malbim), this prophecy refers to the fall of western civilization, at which point Am Yisrael will achieve its final redemption.

This association between Edom and the Roman Empire is widespread and practically universal in our traditional literature, but the basis for this association is far from clear. On what basis can we identify the Romans as the descendants of Esav? Abarbanel, in a through discussion of this topic in his commentary to Sefer Yeshayahu (chapter 35), sharpens the question by noting that theoretically, we would associate Rome with Edom for one of three reasons: geographic – the land of Edom was situated in the region of Rome; genealogical – the Romans descend from Esav; religious – the faith observed by the Romans was that of Esav. Clearly, however, none of these three are correct. The land of Edom, situated southeast of Eretz Yisrael, is nowhere near Italy. As for genealogy, there is, seemingly, no genealogical evidence linking Rome to Edom. In fact, Chazal claim that the Romans descended from the Kittim, listed in the Torah among the offspring of Yavan (Greece), who was a son of Noach's son Yefet (Bereishit 10:4). Finally, we have no basis for associating the religion of the Roman Empire – Greek paganism and then, from the time of Constantine, Christianity – has anything to do with the faith of the ancient Edomites.

One source possibly relevant to this issue is the final two words of Rashi's commentary to Parashat Vayishlach. The last four verses of this parasha list the "alufim," or "governors," of Edom. According to Rashi (36:40), these verses foresee the time when Edom's monarchy will have fallen, and several different officials in Edom rule over their respective provinces. These governors, Rashi writes, took on the names of the provinces under their charge. Based on the Midrash (Pirkei De-Rabbi Eliezer, 38), Rashi, commenting on the name "Magdiel," writes, "Hi Romi" – this refers to Rome. In other words, the province "Magdiel" listed among the Edomite provinces is in fact Rome.

The Ramban raises two objections to Rashi's comment. First, Rome had many emperors over its history; why would the Torah make reference to one specific official who ruled over this province? The Maharal of Prague, in his "Gur Aryeh," easily resolves this question by explaining that "Magdiel" became the generic name of the province and its rulers; it thus refers not to a single governor, but rather to all the governors that ruled over it. The Ramban also notes that Rome was not a province, but rather an enormous, frightening empire. Why, then, would the Torah refer to it as a province? Once again, the Maharal provides a simple answer: the Torah speaks of the early period of Rome when it was but a small, modest state, before it developed into the powerful empire that conquered the world.

In any event, it appears, at first glance, that this Midrash provides us with a basis for the association between Rome and Edom: Rome was the Edomite province of "Magdiel" that later grew and developed into the Roman Empire.

Needless to say, however, such a contention is geographically untenable. Why the Middle-Eastern nation of Edom have a province across the Mediterranean Sea, in Italy? Chazal, who lived under the Roman Empire, were well aware of the vast distance between Edom and Rome, and could not possibly have believed that Edom's territory extended to Italy.

For this reason, Rav Chayim Hirschensohn, in his "Nimukei Rashi," argues that Rashi never meant to take this Midrashic passage literally, as identifying Magdiel as Rome. Rather, Rashi understood this Midrash allegorically, as did the Ramban. The Ramban explains that these "alufim," though they undoubtedly existed, also served as symbols of what would unfold much later in history (in the spirit of "ma'aseh avot siman la-banim," which the Ramban extends even to the gentile nations). According to the Midrash, these "alufim" represent future phases of Edomite history, with "Magdiel" symbolizing the Roman Empire.

If, indeed, we read Rashi in this vein, than we once again have no basis for identifying the Roman Empire as the descendants of Esav.

Tomorrow we will iy"H continue our discussion of this topic, focusing primarily on Abarbanel's lengthy treatment of the issue.

******

Yesterday, we discussed the famous association drawn by Chazal and later writers between the nation of Edom, which Esav establishes as described in Parashat Vayishlach, and the Roman Empire and the Christian world at large thereafter. As we saw, it is unclear, at least at first glance, on what basis we may identify the Romans as the descendants or followers of Esav.

Abarbanel devotes to this topic a rather lengthy essay within his commentary to the thirty-fifth chapter of Sefer Yeshayahu. He records that a certain Jewish apostate in Spain, as part of his efforts to undermine Jewish belief, denied Jewish tradition's claim that Rome and the western world are the descendants or heirs of Edom. Trying to free himself and his newly acquired Christian brethren of any relationship to the prophecies concerning the fall of Edom, this apostate argued that the Sages invented this association out of their deep-seeded hatred towards the Christian world.

In response, Abarbanel acknowledges the fact that no concerted effort was ever made to substantiate our tradition's assumption identifying Rome as Edom. He cites the claim made by several Rishonim – the Ramban, Ran and Radak, that the Edomites were the first to accept Christianity, and it was they who then brought the Christian faith to Rome, which later formally adopted the faith as the empire's official religion. This therefore accounts for our tradition's reference to the Roman Empire as "Edom." As the Abarbanel notes, however, these Rishonim do not bring any detailed historical data as a basis for this theory.

Abarbanel himself argues that this tradition originates from Josephus' account of the ancient history of Rome. Josephus writes that after Yaakov's death in Egypt, as his sons traveled to Canaan to bury him, they were attacked by the armies of Edom. But the brothers overpowered their assailants and even captured Tzefo, Esav's grandson (see Bereishit 36:11), and brought him and his men back with them to Egypt. But Tzefo and his men fled to Carthage, where he became a great general and led Carthage's war against the Kittim in Italy. He later betrayed the African kingdom and joined the Kittim in Italy, who crhim as their king. According to Josephus, Tzefo was renamed Janus, a different name for the planet Saturn which these people worshipped at that time. (Today, Janus is the name of one of Saturn's moons; it is also the name of a god in Roman mythology.) Abarbanel records some accounts that during his reign Janus built the famous cities of Genoa in northern Italy and Palermo, once the capital of Sicily. (He also brings the Roman legend of Saturn who fled to Italy and became the first king of the country, claiming that it refers to Tzefo.)

As evidence to Josephus' account, Abarbanel brings a historical record that Janus arrived in Italy 1,500 years before the Common Era. Abarbanel calculates that this coincides with the sixth year after Yaakov's death, which perfectly accommodates Josephus' account.

He briefly adds a speculative claim that Latinus, who is said to have been a Roman king who established Latin, may be "Lotan" whom the Torah lists among the governors of the "Chori" who lived in Edom (Bereishit 36:21).

In any event, Abarbanel emphasizes the fact that these sources form a strong enough historical basis for Jewish tradition's belief that the Romans have origins in Edom. Rav Chayim Herschensohn, in the passage in his "Nimukei Rashi" cited yesterday, likewise maintains that Chazal accepted as factual Josephus' account of the capture of Tzefo and his ultimate reign over Italy.

In addition, Abarbanel argues that several theological parallels exist between Esav and the Roman Empire. For one thing, Esav and Yaakov both inherited the monotheistic beliefs of their father; similarly, the Roman Empire rejected paganism and adopted the Jewish belief in a single deity (leaving aside the technical question as to the Halakhic status of Christianity). Additionally, Esav married wives from different nationalities, just as Rome brought many different nations under a single empire and religion.

Rav Mendel Hirsch, in his work on the haftarot, also addresses the association drawn between Esav and the Roman Empire. Making no mention of Abarbanel's discussion or the sources cited there, Rav Mendel claims that "there is no historical information of any actual relationship by descent." He adds that we have little reliable data in general as to the early centuries of the Roman Empire. However, he writes, "the dynamic forces and the principles and means which Roman history displays" very much correspond to the qualities of Esav as expressed in the Torah. He points to two factors that most dominantly characterized Esav. First was the art of deceit, the ability to "hunt" with his mouth by speaking falsehood (see Rashi to 25:28). Secondly, Yitzchak, in his blessing to Esav, foresees that "al charbekha tichyeh" – Esav will live by the sword (27:40). Rav Mendel Hirsch claims that these two characteristics were never "more triumphant than in the building up of the Roman Empire of world dominion." Thus, even if we have no historical evidence linking the Roman Empire with Edom, this association stems from the fact that in Chazal's eyes, the Roman Empire represented, in Rav Mendel Hirsch's words, "the most brilliant realization of the Esau-Edom principle."

******

As we mentioned earlier this week, the haftara for Parashat Vayishlach is (according to most traditions) the single-chapter book of Ovadya. Who is Ovaadya, and when did he live? When did he transmit this prophecy? The opening verse of the sefer tells us nothing about Ovadya's past. As Abarbanel notes, this is most unusual; in the opening verse of every book of prophecy, we are told at least the name of the prophet's father or the town where he lived, if not the time period in which he lived. Abarbanel claims that the absence of any information regarding Ovadya prompted Chazal (Sanhedrin 39b) to identify him as an Edomite convert to Judaism. Since he dissociated himself from his family and country of origin and came to Israel, the text omits any information concerning his background. Chazal note the significance of the fact that specifically someone from Edomite background is the one who prophetically foresees the downfall of Edom.

It is likely that the omission of Ovadya's background from the opening verse may have also led Chazal (ibid.) to the conclusion that this is the same Ovadya mentioned in Sefer Melakhim I (18:3) as the administrator of the palace of Achav, king of the Northern Kingdom. Sefer Ovadya thus felt it unnecessary to provide any background information about the prophet, since we have already met him earlier in Tanakh, in Sefer Melakhim.

Is there any relationship between Ovadya's position as director of Achav's affairs and his prophecy? The Gemara explains that Ovadya was exceptional in that he lived among two wicked people – King Achav and Queen Izevel – and nevertheless remained God-fearing. Sefer Melakhim tells of how Ovadya risked his life by hiding and feeding one hundred prophets when Izevel, in the interest of institutionalizing Ba'al worship as the exclusive religion of the Kingdom, embarked on her campaign to eliminate all prophets of God (Melakhim I 18:4). It was only appropriate, then, that he would prophesy the fall of Edom, the nation of Esav, who was raised by Yitzchak and Rivka and yet resisted their positive influence and pursued a path of corruption and violence.

Ibn Ezra, however, in his opening comments to this sefer, denies this identification of Ovadya. He notes that Sefer Melakhim describes Ovadya who worked in Achav's home simply as "God-fearing" (18:3). If he were a prophet, certainly we would expect the text to give a far more impressive description than "God-fearing"!

Abarbanel, however, provides a simple answer in defense of the Gemara's view, arguing that quite conceivably, Ovadya earned prophecy only after his term of service for Achav. It stands to reason that while living in the home of Achav and Izevel he would not receive any prophetic visions from the Almighty, and he thus began his career as prophet only later.

The content of Ovadya's prophecy is also subject to a dispute between these commentators. Ovadya foresees the destruction of Edom, but when will this or did this occur? According to many commentators, including Abarbanel and Malbim, Ovadya refers here to western civilization (see our discussions over the last two days), which will fall at the time of the Messianic era. The first verses of this prophecy forewarn the descent of many nations upon Edom to destroy it. According to Abarbanel and Malbim, this is the war described in Yechezkel 38-39 and Zekharya 14, when, as they understand these prophecies, the Christian nations will capture Eretz Yisrael from the Arabs, who will then descend upon them to reclaim it. Ibn Ezra, however, in his commentary to verse 10 of Sefer Ovadya, argues that this prophecy must refer to the defeat of Edom at the hands of the Babylonian king Nevuchadnetzar, after the destruction of Jerusalem. He proves his stance from the fact that Ovadya criticizes Edom for having "stood aloof, when aliens carried off his [Benei Yisrael's] goods, when foreigners entered his gates and cast lots for Jerusalem" (verse 11). Edom is punished not for directly persecuting Benei Yisrael, but rather for its indifference towards their suffering. If Ovadya speaks of Edom's punishment at the end of days, then they should be subject to retribution for far worse crimes – such as the destruction of the Second Temple and centuries of persecution. Rather, Ibn Ezra claims, Ovadya warns that God will punish Edom by sending Nevuchadnetzar to destroy it after it exiles Benei Yisrael. Abarbanel responds, quite simply, that this description is but one of several crimes of Edom described by the prophet; with the unfolding of the Messianic era, Edom will suffer the consequences of all its inhumane conduct, beginning with its celebration at the destruction of Jerusalem.

Yet a third view is taken by Rav Mendel Hirsch, in his commentary to this haftara, who claims that the prophet here describes the fall of the Roman Empire itself. In this vein he interprets the end of verse 7 – "Your 'bread' have plantesnares under you." Rav Mendel claims that "your bread" means those nations whom Edom had deemed inferior and harmless, as in the phrase, "lachmenu hem" ("there are our bread") in Sefer Bamidbar 14:9. This verse thus refers to the primitive, Germanic tribes who ultimately brought down the Roman Empire and took its place as the dominant force in Europe.

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