 |
|
|
The Israel Koschitzky Virtual Beit
Midrash
Surf A Little Torah
PARASHAT VAYISHLACH By Rav David Silverberg
Parashat Vayishlach tells the story of Yaakov's struggle with a
mysterious assailant in the middle of the night, as he crossed the Yabok stream
along his return to the The Da'at Zekeinim Mi-Ba'alei Ha-Tosefot suggests two explanations as to why the Torah issued a special prohibition to commemorate this event. The Da'at Zekeinim first offers perhaps the most intuitive explanation, namely, that we must remember and give thanks for Yaakov's miraculous escape from his assailant. The angel that attacked Yaakov was capable only of injuring his leg, but could not achieve its goal of killing the patriarch, and for this we must express gratitude, which we accomplish by refraining from the gid ha-nasheh. The Da'at Zekeinim then suggest a second, far more novel understanding of the gid ha-nasheh prohibition, viewing it as an admonition, of sorts, rather than merely a commemoration. Yaakov's sons, the Da'at Zekeinim writes, acted improperly by allowing their father to go alone in the dark of night to retrieve the belongings left behind at the other side of the stream. They should have taken the responsibility of providing him with an escort to protect him from harm. Their irresponsibility in this regard resulted in Yaakov's injury, and we are therefore instructed never to partake of the gid ha-nasheh, so that we remember this event and exercise greater care in escorting travelers, rather than allow them to travel alone. Rav Yehuda Leib Ginsburg, in his Yalkut Yehuda, suggests a slight modification of the Da'at Zekeinim's second explanation, thereby arriving at a very novel – yet ever so simple – lesson that emerges from the gid ha-nasheh. Perhaps, Rav Ginsburg writes, the Torah seeks to impress upon grown children the importance of assisting their parents rather than continuing to cast on them all domestic responsibilities. Chazal famously comment that Yaakov returned to the other side of the stream in order to pick up some pakhim ketanim – small packages – that had been left behind. A responsible adult child would in such a circumstance take the initiative and offer to do these chores instead of the elderly father. Yaakov's sons perhaps failed in this respect, by not shouldering the burden of responsibility under the trying circumstances of travel. It is this lesson, perhaps, that the prohibition of gid ha-nasheh seeks to convey. Rav Ginsburg then suggests a possible connection between this message and the particular injury that Yaakov suffered. Yaakov's limp perhaps symbolizes the "crippling" effect of lethargy and lack of initiative on the part of the Jewish people's younger generation. When the nation's youngsters focus their energies disproportionately on their personal affairs, leaving it to the older generation to confront the problems and challenges facing the Jewish people, then the nation stagnates, it progresses slowly, with a "limp." The prohibition of gid ha-nasheh thus reminds the younger generation of their responsibilities in tending to the needs of the Jewish people, that they may not sit back passively on the assumption that the nation's older members will shoulder this burden. ******
The Torah tells in Parashat Vayishlach that after Yaakov's nocturnal
struggle against a mysterious assailant as he made his way back to Among the many questions that arise from this discussion relates to the significance of the setting in which this conversation took place. Why did the Gemara find it important to inform us that Rabbi Akiva posed this question to his colleagues on the way to the butcher shop? On one level, one might suggest that the Gemara seeks to convey the importance of discussing and involving oneself in Torah whenever possible, at all times, even be-lekhtekha ba-derekh – when one goes about and tends to his mundane affairs. Even the time one spends traveling or running errands should – whenever possible – be used constructively as an opportunity for Torah learning. Additionally, however, Rav Dov Weinberger, in his Shemen Ha-tov, suggests a possible connection between the particular setting of wedding preparations and Rabbi Akiva's question. People involved in preparing a personal celebration have a tendency to become excessively absorbed in the affair. At these occasions in a person's life, he might, in Rav Weinberger's words, begin to feel "that the entire world is his, and the sun of success shines upon him, to the point where he forgets others as well as the Master of the world." Specifically at occasions such as these it is appropriate for the question to be asked, "Was it only for him that the sun rose – it rose for the entire world!" One must never forget that he is but one individual among millions, and therefore even at times of personal celebration and joy, he mustn't forget his obligations towards others and towards the Almighty. ******
Among the events recorded in Parashat Vayishlach is the tragic story of
Dina, Yaakov's daughter, who was abducted and defiled by Shekhem, the prince of
the city that bore his name. The
Torah describes Dina's brothers' dismay and anger upon hearing of what had
happened: "They were very angry, for he [Shekhem] committed an outrage in
The Beit Ha-levi detects in this verse two distinct elements that
contributed to the brothers' response.
First, "he committed an outrage in Dina's brothers' rage was fueled, the Beit Ha-levi writes, by both the particular offense committed against Yaakov and his family, and the breach of the most elementary standard of ethics. One might have argued that since Shekhem was entirely unaware of Dina's prestigious family background, we can excuse the offense he committed against Yaakov. Why should we hold him accountable for the shame he brought to Yaakov's family if he had no knowledge of that family's prominence? In truth, however, since Shekhem also committed a crime that "should not be done," that must be condemned regardless of the victim's identity, he deserved punishment even for the aspect of the crime from which he might otherwise have been excused. When one commits a wrong that cannot be justified any under circumstances, he is held accountable for the full extent of the crime, even for those aspects regarding which we might have otherwise found some grounds for absolution. The Beit Ha-levi cites as another example of this principle a halakha established in the Gemara (Masekhet Bava Kama 62a) regarding a case of one who gives his fellow a gold coin to watch for him, but the watchmen is under the impression that the coin is made from silver. If he negligently loses the object, the Gemara rules, he must pay a silver coin, for had he known that the coin was made from gold, he perhaps would have guarded it more vigilantly. If, however, the watchman intentionally destroys the coin, then he must repay its full value. Purposeful damage cannot be excused on the grounds of ignorance regarding the object's value; damaging property is a crime regardless of the value involved. Therefore, the watchman is held accountable for the full extent of the crime, just as Shekhem deserved punishment not merely for abusing an innocent girl, but for bringing shame upon the distinguished family of Yaakov. Rav Avraham Pam (as cited in The Pleasant Way by Rabbi Shalom Smith) extended the Beit Ha-levi's theory to the general realm of interpersonal relations. We often tend to mistreat or ignore the feelings of people who strike us as inferior, unworthy of our respect and admiration. Speaking or acting improperly towards others is inexcusable under any circumstances, even if this impression of inferiority is correct. But in many instances, this impression is wholly inaccurate, and the person whom we take the liberty to malign is in truth a person of great prominence. In these cases, as the Beit Ha-levi establishes, the offender is held accountable not merely for the general wrong of insulting a fellow human being, but also for putting down a person of greatness and distinction – even if the offender was entirely unaware of the victim's stature. ****** Towards the beginning of Parashat Vayishlach, we read that Yaakov sent several teams of servants to Esav bringing him lavish gifts of cattle. The Torah records in great detail the instructions Yaakov conveyed to his servants: "When my brother Esav meets you and asks, 'To whom do you belong; where are you going; whose are these [animals] before you,' you shall say, "[We belong] to your servant Yaakov; it is a gift sent to my master Esav" (32:18-19). The Torah then emphasizes – with uncharacteristic verbosity – that Yaakov repeated these instructions to each servant: "He commanded the first [servant] as well as the second and as well as the third, and also all those who went behind the herds: so shall you say to Esav when you come upon him" (32:20). The Chafetz Chayim (in Chomat Ha-dat, chapter 3; cited in Likutei Chafetz Chayim al Ha-Torah) suggests a halakhic explanation of these verses that perhaps sheds light on the unusual detail in which this narrative is written. According to Halakha, the purchase of a gentile servant entails a partial conversion; as a result of the purchase, the servant becomes obligated in most mitzvot of the Torah (exempted only from time-bound Torah obligations, like women). When the servant is released from servitude, he becomes a full-fledged convert with a complete status as a Jew. Moreover, Halakha forbids a Jewish owner from selling his gentile servant to another gentile, since this will terminate the servant's conversion process. In fact, a Jew who sells his servant to a gentile is fined a heavy penalty for facilitating the servant's departure from a life of Torah and mitzvot. According to the Chafetz Chayim, it is this concern that Yaakov addresses in his instructions to his servants. He anticipates that when Esav sees Yaakov's servants, he might ask, "To whom do you belong" – meaning, he will inquire as to whether the servants themselves are part of the gift from Yaakov, and now belong to him. Yaakov very adamantly demands that his servants reply unequivocally, "[We belong] to your servant Yaakov; it [the group of animals] is a gift sent to my master Esav." The servants were to inform Esav that they still belong to Yaakov; they are sent merely to deliver the gift, but they remain in Yaakov's possession. The Torah laboriously emphasizes that Yaakov repeated this instruction to each team of servants, in order to stress how concerned Yaakov was that his servants would remain under his authority, rather than come under Esav's possession. The Chafetz Chayim presents this interpretation of the verses to emphasize how adamant Yaakov was to ensure that his servants would retain their loyalty and devotion to mitzvot and not abrogate the Torah by joining Esav. All the more so, the Chafetz Chayim adds, must parents see to it that their children remain loyal to their religious heritage, and work to ensure that they do not grow to prefer the authority of "Esav." ****** Parashat Vayishlach tells of Yaakov's long-feared reunion with his brother, Esav. Just prior to their meeting, we read that Yaakov took his "eleven children" with him across the Yabok stream (32:23). Of course, a quick counting of Yaakov's children, whose births are recorded earlier, in Parashat Vayetze, yields twelve – rather than eleven – children. Rashi, citing the Midrash, explains that Dina, Yaakov's only daughter, is not included among Yaakov's children in this narrative. As the Midrash explains, Yaakov feared that Esav might look upon her beauty and seek her hand in marriage. To avoid this risk, Yaakov hid Dina in a chest he carried with him. Rashi concludes, "Yaakov was therefore punished, for he withheld her from his brother – perhaps she would have returned him to proper conduct. She [therefore] fell in the hands of Shekhem." The Midrash surprisingly disapproves of Yaakov's precautionary measure of concealing Dina from his brother, claiming that he should actually have allowed Dina to marry Esav in the hope that her influence would catalyze a process of improvement and spiritual growth. What more, according to the Midrash, the tragic incident of Dina's abduction and defilement at the hands of Shekhem served as a punishment for Yaakov's having withheld her from Esav. Many writers have struggled to explain why the Midrash criticizes Yaakov for what appears to be a very reasonable concern. Are marriages to be arranged on the far-fetched hope of one party's future improvement? Can we ever be so certain that one spouse will positively influence the other? Was Yaakov not justified in his concern that to the contrary, Esav might exert a negative influence on Dina? Today we will begin a series of posts citing and discussing just some of the many approaches taken to deal with these questions. Among the most novel explanations is offered by Rav Chayim Ha-kohen Rappaport, in his work of responsa Otzerot Chayim, as cited in the compendium Ke-motzei Shalal Rav. Rav Rappaport suggests an entirely different reading of Rashi's comments. Recall that Rashi writes, "Yaakov was therefore punished, for he withheld her from his brother – perhaps she would have returned him to proper conduct. She [therefore] fell in the hands of Shekhem." Rav Rappaport takes note of Rashi's peculiar terminology – "shema tachazirenu le-mutav," which literally reads, "lest she bring him back to proper conduct." The word shema ("lest") is generally used in reference to something that one wishes will not occur. Accordingly, Rav Rappaport understood Rashi to mean that Yaakov withheld Dina from Esav out of concern that she might influence him to repent. Yaakov harbored negative feelings and a degree of resentment towards his brother, and therefore did not want him to repent. It was for this reason that he so adamantly refused to consider allowing Esav's marriage to Dina, and it was for this reason that he was punished. Of course, this very bold assertion – that Yaakov specifically did not want Esav to repent – gives rise to the general question of whether we can ascribe this type of ill-will and animosity to one of the patriarchs. One might contend that a man of Yaakov's piety would not have harbored such irrational feelings of hatred towards his brother, to the point that he wished against his future teshuva. We might adjust Rav Rappaport's approach to arrive at a different, perhaps more palatable explanation. The Midrash perhaps criticizes Yaakov not for his refusal to allow Esav to marry Dina, but for not even considering the possibility of Esav's future improvement. If Esav had expressed interest in marrying Dina and Yaakov refused after serious consideration of the dangers to his daughter, God would not have objected. But Yaakov reached this conclusion even before his meeting with Esav, without allowing for the possibility that Esav might now be in a position to repent with the proper influence. Yaakov may not have desired that Esav remain corrupt, as Rav Rappaport explained, but he never considered the prospect of Esav's teshuva. Yaakov's concealment of Dina ahead of time showed that he approached Esav's everlasting corruption as a foregone conclusion. If so, then the Midrash teaches the importance of never despairing from any human being, and always acknowledging the power of even the most corrupt sinners to repent and improve. ****** Today we will continue yesterday's discussion regarding a perplexing Midrashic passage cited by Rashi in his commentary to Parashat Vayishlach (32:23). The Midrash claims that as Yaakov prepared for his reunion with Esav, he feared that Esav might set his eyes upon his attractive daughter, Dina, and wish to marry her. Yaakov therefore concealed Dina, a decision for which God criticized him, noting that Dina could have perhaps influenced Esav to repent. Dina's abduction by Shekhem, the Midrash writes, served as Yaakov's punishment for withholding her from Esav. Today we will present other approaches taken to explain how Yaakov could have been expected to run the risk of having his daughter negatively influenced by Esav. According to some writers, the particular circumstance of Dina's possible marriage to Esav lent itself to the positive outcome foreseen by the Midrash, of Esav's repentance. The Nachalat Yaakov (one of the classic works on Rashi's commentary) contrasts this Midrash with a different famous Midrash, cited by Rashi in Parashat Vayetze (29:17), that Leah cried upon hearing rumors of her future marriage to Esav. Nowhere do Chazal criticize Leah for dreading such a marriage, which may have resulted in her positive influence on Esav. Why, then, did the Midrash expect Yaakov to allow his daughter to marry Esav so that she could influence him to repent? The Nachalat Yaakov speculates that perhaps Dina's personality was more likely to positively influence Esav than Leah's. And though Rav David Pardo (in his Maskil Le-David) cynically comments on this speculation, "Perhaps this was revealed to him [the Nachalat Yaakov] through prophecy," the Nachalat Yaakov himself draws evidence to this contention from the Midrash's record of God's response to Yaakov's concealment of Dina (Bereishit Rabba (76): "You withheld kindness from your brother – when she [Dina] married Iyov, did she not have him convert?" The Midrash here follows the tradition that Dina had been previously married to Iyov (of course, this relates to the controversy surrounding Iyov's identity and historical time-frame) and exerted a positive influence upon him. Her impact upon Iyov apparently set a precedent that Yaakov should have considered when confronting the likelihood of Esav's interest in his daughter. Therefore, while generally one should not go into a marriage on the far-fetched hope that he/she can positively influence the other party, the situation of Dina was exceptional in this regard due to the precedent she had set in her previous marriage. Rav Avraham Yitzchak Barzel, in his Iyunei Rashi, suggests a different reason why Yaakov should have felt confident allowing Dina's marriage to Esav. The Talmud (Berakhot 60a), cited in Rashi's commentary to Parashat Vayetze (30:21), tells that Dina was initially conceived as a male fetus. Leah, however, having prophetically foreseen the birth of twelve sons to Yaakov, knew that were she to deliver a seventh son, Rachel would bear only one son – one fewer than even Yaakov's concubines, Bilha and Zilpa, each of whom had already given birth to two sons. Leah therefore prayed that God would miraculously transform her fetus to a female, and she indeed delivered a baby girl, instead of another son. Rav Barzel suggests that the miraculous nature of Dina's birth afforded her a degree of spiritual protection upon which Yaakov could have relied in the hope that she could positively influence Esav. One might respond, however, that the spiritual well-being of one's children does not allow for any margin of error. These two approaches seek to explain why there was room to believe that Dina would positively influence Esav, rather than be influenced by Esav. But even if Yaakov had reason to anticipate this outcome, he could hardly be blamed for retaining a degree of uncertainty, which should seemingly justify his refusal to allow Dina to marry Esav. ****** Today we will conclude our discussion of the event recorded by the Midrash, cited in Rashi's commentary to Parashat Vayishlach (32:23), where Yaakov concealed his daughter, Dina, prior to his reunion with Esav. Yaakov wanted to prevent Esav from setting his eyes upon his attractive daughter and seeking her hand in marriage. According to the Midrash, God punished Yaakov for not allowing for the possibility that Dina would positively impact upon his brother, and she was abducted and abused by Shekhem, as recorded in the next chapter. We have been discussing the question of why God expected Yaakov to take the risk of allowing Dina's marriage to Esav, which may have resulted in her coming under Esav's influence, rather than her impact upon him. A novel reading of this Midrash emerges from a comment cited from the work Peninei Torah (in the compendium Pirchei Rashi). The Peninei Torah explains the Midrash as instructing that parents who disapprove of their son or daughter's choice of a mate are entitled to attempt to verbally dissuade their children, but may not forcefully prevent the marriage. God punished Yaakov for forcefully withholding Dina from Esav, thus teaching that parents can speak to their children about their choice, but not force them out of the match. Apparently, the Peninei Torah understood the Midrash to mean not that Yaakov should have suggested that Dina marry Esav in the hope of exerting a positive influence, but that he should not have forcefully prevented the marriage. If Esav and Dina expressed mutual interest in this match, the possibility of this marriage's positive influence on Esav – far-fetched as it might seem – sufficed to mandate that Yaakov not interfere. Though this possibility would not warrant his initiation of such a match, it is a significant enough factor for Yaakov to allow Dina to marry Esav if she so desired. This approach helps resolves another difficulty one confronts when reading this Midrash. Why did Yaakov have to conceal Dina to prevent her marriage to Esav? Couldn't he have simply refused the match? According to the Peninei Torah's explanation, the answer is clear. Yaakov's concern was that Dina would respond favorably to Esav's proposition, and for this reason he did not want Esav to initiate the match. Rav David Kviat, in his Sukat David, advances an entirely different approach. He notes that Rashi, commenting on the opening verse of the incident of Dina and Shekhem (34:1), cites the Midrash's criticism of Dina for "going out to see the daughters of the land." Dina became involved socially with the young women of Shekhem, and this social activity resulted in the tragedy of her abduction. Rav Kviat thus suggests that Yaakov's guilt lay in his inconsistent approach in dealing with his attractive daughter. Facing the prospect of Esav's interest in Dina, Yaakov locked her in a box; but upon settling outside Shekhem, Yaakov allowed Dina to make friends in the city. The Midrash's criticism of Yaakov is essentially that once he is prepared to tolerate Dina's social interaction with outside peoples, he might as well have allowed for the possibility of her marriage to Esav, in which lay at least the potential for Esav's repentance. Yaakov's permissive handling of Dina outside Shekhem retrospectively called into question his treatment of her earlier, before his reunion with Esav. God therefore responded to Yaakov, as the Midrash records, "You did not want her to be taken by a circumcised man; she will be taken by an uncircumcised man. You did not want her to be taken in a permissible manner; she will be taken in a forbidden manner." Once Yaakov demonstrates his willingness to allow Dina to become socially involved in Shekhem, he should have, in retrospect, allowed for the possibility of her marriage to Esav. |