Hebrew Insights into Parashat Vayeshev (Genesis 37:1 - 40:23)

 "Now Jacob dwelt ("va’ye'shev") in the land where his father had sojourned, in the land of Canaan. These are the generations of Jacob: Joseph was seventeen years of age…." (Gen. 37:1, 2). The root for the verb "to dwell" is y.sh.v. (yod, shin, bet/vet) and means to “dwell, reside, sit, remain”. According to the scripture just quoted, Ya'acov lived in his father's land, but the “account of his generations” ("toldot") is related to the life of his son - Yoseph. Incidentally, Esav's chronicles (in chapter 36), as well as Yishma'el's (25:12-18), are simply lists of names, whereas the Patriarchs' chronicles are narratives presenting increasing revelations of Elohim and  His involvement in the lives of those who bear His name.1  Additionally, identifying Ya'acov's dwelling place with "the land where his father had sojourned", and tying up his annals with the name of his son (Yoseph) serve to illustrate the typical Hebraic approach to the linkage of the generations. Those living in the present do not identify solely with their contemporaries; they are no less connected to their ancestors than to their progeny.   

In telling the story of Ya'acov, the narrative highlights the person and tale of Yoseph who was favored by his father. As a mark of his affection, Ya'acov made his son a special tunic, "k'tonet passim", a tunic of "passim". Unlike the commonly held view that this robe, or tunic, was made up of multi-colored stripes, the word "passim" actually indicates that the robe was extra long - covering the feet and especially the flat of the hands. The verb p.s.s  (pey, samech, samech, or p.s.h, pey, samech, hey) means to “disappear” or “pass on” (e.g.  Psalms 12:1), indicating that the hand would ‘disappear’ because of the ampleness of the cloth. It was of a style "such as the daughters of the king dressed themselves" (in 2^nd Sam. 13:18, David's daughter, Tamar, is recorded wearing such a robe). By clothing Yoseph in a princely garb, Ya'acov communicated to the rest of his sons that he had ordained him to inherit the birthright. It is no wonder that Ya'acov's favored son incurred the wrath of his brothers, even before he shared his dreams with them. When Ya'acov (or Yisrael, as he is called when interacting with this son) heard Yoseph's second dream, he too became somewhat exasperated with this spoiled brat. However, the text goes on to tell us that, "his father kept the saying in his heart" (37:11). Another parent, who on one occasion "treasured all these things, pondering them in her heart", and who at another time "hid [the words] in her heart" was Miriam, Yeshua's mother (Luke 2:19, 51). In her case, as well as in Ya’acov’s, these “things” were prophetic and had to do with a grand destiny awaiting the son.

 

At the beginning of the Parasha, we are told that Yoseph "was feeding the flocks with his brothers... the sons of Bilha and the sons of Zilpa" (37:2). "Feeding with.." can also be read (in the Hebrew), as "shepherding". Is the text trying to hint at the fact that Yoseph was actually responsible for overseeing those brothers?

It is no wonder that the brothers responded to each dream’s account by hating “him even more” (37:5, 8). “Even more” is not a direct translation of the original, which is “va-yosiphu” – “and they added”. In other words, more hatred was added to the negative emotions that the brothers were already harboring toward their sibling. What makes the usage of this verb here quite intriguing is its root connection - y.s.ph (yod, samech, pey/fey) - to the name of the one who was the object of this hatred (i.e. Yoseph).

 

The Parasha’s account of the conflict between Yoseph and his brothers is marked by an absence of “shalom”: “And his brothers saw that their father loved him more than all his brothers, they hated him and could not speak peaceably to him” (v. 4, emphasis added).  But even though the situation was not resolved, when the brothers went to Shechem to shepherd their father’s flocks, “Israel said to Joseph, ‘Are not your brothers feeding the flock in Shechem? Come, I will send you to them.’ So he said to him, ‘Here I am.’  Then he said to him, ‘Please go and see if it is well with your brothers [‘see the peace of…’] and well with the flocks [again ‘see the peace of…’], and bring back word to me’" (37:13-14 emphases added). Yisrael sought information as to the “peace” of his sons who were, supposedly, doing their work in Shechem. Some years earlier, when he returned to the Land after his sojourn in Aram, Shechem was the first location where he found himself. Last week we noted that “Jacob came safely to the city of Shechem” (33:18). That “safely”, as we know, is actually “shalem” – which is whole, unharmed (and perhaps ‘in one piece’).  However, this condition of “shalem” did not lead to “shalom”. The fallacy of “shalom in Shechem” (or Sh’chem, in Hebrew) was perpetuated when Hamor and Shechem his son, the “lords of the land”, who were also involved in the rape of Dina, presented to their compatriots the so-called peaceable offer of Yaacov’s sons (34:21) . Sure, if flesh and greed are gratified, there is a semblance of peace! The all-time guarantee for the ultimate “shalom” in the world is made up of gratifying sexual appetites, material covetousness, and egoistic ambitions. But when those are not to be had, the spirits of lust, greed, and jealousy prevail, as is so well demonstrated in our Parasha.

 

Another quick note on the parallel of the Sh’chem episode to our current one: There it says that “Dina went out to see the daughters of the land” (34:1), while here her uncle is “wandering in the field” on his way to find his brothers. Both “field trips”, in the very same area of the country, ended in harmful and violent circumstances perpetrated upon these two walkers. Yet the one obvious difference is that Dina, unlike Yoseph, went of her own volition.

 

Ya'acov may have been concerned for his sons' safety in Sh'chem, as that town's residents most likely remembered them only too well.2  Much latter, in B’resheet (Genesis) 45:8, Yoseph will declare the following words to his brothers who, in a situation comparable to the present one, would also be sent, albeit to Egypt:  "So now it was not you that sent me hither, but Elohim…".3  The commentator goes on to say that "this verse supplies the key to the understanding of the whole story, which unfolds a dual level of the mission. There is the obvious mission that Ya'acov sends his son on, but underlying this mission lies the hidden (deep) workings of Providence which is sending the descendants of Avraham to Egypt". It is this connection to Avraham that brings the "Valley of Chevron" (see 37:14) into the picture, even though Chevron was on a mountain and not in the valley. The commentator continues: "Emek ("valley of") Chevron is referring to God's mysterious and deep prophecy to Avraham, and is a play on the word "emek", literally "deep place".4  “Valley” may also be a hint as to what was Yoseph’s first ‘station’ on his way to the awaiting “valley of the shadow of death”. To that, we would add that the episode of the father (Ya'acov) who sends his son to seek "the remainder of his brethren [who will return]…" (Micha 5:3), also forms an equivalent picture of the heavenly Father sending His Son to bring back to Himself His children (the sons of Yisrael/Ya'acov). Let us also take note of Yoseph’s response to being sent, “here am I” – “hineh’ni”, being a condensed form of “hineh ani” – “behold here I am”.  Although a common idiom, which we have encountered even up to this point (e.g. Gen. 27:18), what comes to mind is another ‘send off’. In Yisha’ayahu (Isaiah) 6:8 we read the following: “And I heard the voice of YHVH, saying, whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then I said, here am I [hineh’ni]; send me!“ (Italics added).

                         

Ya'acov sent Yoseph from Chevron, which is in Yehuda, to Sh'chem which is in Shomron (Samaria) and from there Yoseph goes on to Dotan (Dothan), also in Shomron, and is then taken to Egypt ("the world"). This route becomes a geographical prototype foreshadowing the journey of the Gospel and its witnesses, from Yehuda to Shomron and the uttermost parts of the world (ref. Acts 1:8). 

 

Interestingly, the shepherds did not lead their flocks to the green and serene pastures of Sh’chem (or at least they did not stay there) but continued on their way. As for Yoseph, he was directed by “a man” to follow them northward, to Dotan. Notice that Yoseph’s informant did not require much information; he already knew who the “brothers” were, and neither was he ignorant of their whereabouts.  The reference to the “man” – eesh – whom Yoseph runs into takes us back to last week’s Parasha, where his father had a dramatic encounter with an “eesh” (Gen. 32:24). (Here is a link to a song, It is my brothers whom I am seeking, https://youtu.be/7FqZJN9w1EY).

 

But what awaited Yoseph in Dotan was far from a hearty reunion. His brothers sought to kill him, and only by Reuven’s intervention was his life spared, and he was cast into a pit instead. While Yoseph was naked, having been stripped off of his tunic by his brothers, and no doubt thirsty and hungry, his brothers sat down to eat bread (37:24-25). “Bread” is "le’chem", of the root l.ch.m (lamed, chet, mem) which is also the root for the verb "to fight", and for the noun "war" ("milchama"). The men ate their bread - lechem - while in their hearts there was a war-like attitude - milchama - toward their brother. Proverbs 4:17 says of the wicked: "They eat the bread of wickedness". The verb for "eat" there is "la'cha'mu", which normally would be understood as "fight", making this verse applicable to the wickedness manifested by Yoseph's brothers.  Shlomo Ostrovski comments here that Yoseph’s brothers had no idea that someday they would seek out their victim for the very substance with which they were now satisfying their hunger 5 while denying him of it.

 

And so, even when the various episodes involve other protagonists, named and unnamed, the Word points to Yoseph’s central role all the way. His present circumstances are echoed in Yirmiyahu 31:15, where Rachel is described as "weeping for her children, refusing to be comforted because they are no more". However, in Hebrew it says "because he is no more". Since this does not make syntactical sense, we have to ask, 'what does this mean'? Well, back in our Parasha the bewildered Reuven, upon realizing that Yoseph was no longer in the pit, cried out: "the lad is no more" (37:30). "He is no more" will be repeated twice in next week's Parasha, this time by Yehuda while addressing Yoseph (42:13, 32). Thus, the emphasis regarding Rachel's lost children is on the "one" - Yoseph (with past, present, and future implications), while the "no more", "eyne'nu", is about to be replaced by "hineni" - “here I am” (by those who come to recognize their ‘Yosephite’ identity) –- just as Yoseph responded to his father when the latter dispatched him to his brothers (37:13).

 

Yoseph was brought down to Egypt - "mitzrayim" - the narrow place of adversity - but "YHVH was with Joseph, so he became a successful man…" (39:2). "Successful" takes us back to the word "matzli'ach" that we studied in Parashat Cha’yey Sarah (in Genesis 24:21), which is where we noted that it means to “cause to advance". It is quite evident who caused Yoseph to advance, so much so that even his pagan master, Potiphar, recognized it (v. 3). According to Studies in B’resheet, Yoseph's "master saw and heard Yoseph make mention of the name of his God and attribute his success and abilities not to his powers but to the Almighty".6 this conclusion by the Sages is not unfounded. In fact, it is borne out by what Yoseph says on various other occasions. In 39:9, when warding off the advances of Potiphar's wife, he exclaimed, "How then could I do this great evil and sin against Elohim?" In 40:8, when asked to interpret dreams while in prison, he will respond: "Do not interpretation belong to Elohim?" Yoseph will continue to mention the name of his Elohim even when brought before Par'oh (Pharaoh), in the next Parasha.

 

But in the meantime, the opening verse of chapter 39 reiterates the downward spiral that Yoseph was in: “Now Joseph had been brought down to Egypt” (emphasis added).  This event seems to have taken place simultaneously with Yehuda’s departure from his country, from his family, and from his father’s house (cf. Gen. 12:1). What is the difference between each of those descends? Yehuda’s guilt and self-condemnation caused him to choose a way out, which led to his spiritual backsliding, whereas Yoseph was brought down not of his own volition. There is a very clear distinction in the respective responses of these two men. The one is said to have “gone down” (ref. 38:1) and was moving from bad to worse, without looking for a redemptive opportunity, whereas the other, who was subject to others’ decisions, made good of every opportunity that came his way. However, in each of those cases, there exists the overriding sovereignty of YHVH, in spite of what may be ‘natural’ inclinations (see Proverbs 16:9). When Yehuda left his family, he followed his heart’s leaning – va-yet (meaning “incline”, or “lean” 38:1) and went over to his Adulamite friend Hirah upon whom he was leaning/relying for help. Later, when he sees the “harlot”, it says that “he turned – va-yet - to her” (38:16), once again following his inclinations and desires. On the other hand, after Yoseph was subjected to and resisted someone else’s lust, it says of him that YHVH “was with Yoseph and [literally] – va-yet - inclined/turned His mercy/loving kindness/grace [chesed] toward him” (39:21 emphasis added).

 

Yehuda’s downward journey was accompanied by many mishaps, although there is some evidence of an attempt on his part to do the “right thing”. How typical of guilt, shame, and self-condemnation to lead us to try and cover them up with “good works”! Thus, his sons’ names provide a clue as to these feeble attempts. Yehuda named his firstborn “Er”, meaning “awake”. He was hoping that his depression and spiritual slumber could be redeemed by having this firstborn. His second son was called “Onan” – “on” being strength. Rachel named Binyamin, Ben-Oni, “son of my strength” (and not “sorrow” as commonly thought) as his birth had depleted all of her vigor). As to Yehuda’s third son, the latter was born under strange circumstances: “He was at Chezib when she bore him” (38:5). Who was at Chezib? Was it the newborn (and his mother), or was it the father? What is Chezib? Is it truly a place, or is it a description of a condition? Chezib means “lie, deception, falsehood”. Is it possible that Shelah was a product of lying and deception, and was, therefore, the son of another man, rather than Yehuda’s?  Or was Yehuda away while he was born, causing his wife great grief? One way or another, Shelah’s birth was not a cause of great joy, otherwise, why would Scripture take the trouble to record the fact that “he was in chezib” at the birth? The name Shelah could possibly mean “hers”, reinforcing the possibility that the boy may have not been Yehuda’s biological son.

 

When Yehuda’s degeneration reaches bottom, he turns (as we saw above) to a prostitute (after his wife’s death), with whom he left his most precious possessions: signet, cord, and staff. Like Easv, who for momentary satisfaction was willing to give up his birthright, Yehuda had given the ‘markers’ of his identity and authority to the one whom he perceived to be a prostitute. Interestingly, later, when he went looking for her to retrieve his treasures and to cover up his embarrassment and pride (and said, "Let her take them – the objects - for herself, lest we be shamed” 38:23 emphasis added), he used the term “k’desha”, which is a “temple prostitute”. However, that word shares its root with “kadosh” – set apart and holy. In verses 21 and 22 of chapter 38, this word appears 3 times. Again, a hint as to the true nature of this woman, who turned out to be “kdosha”, holy and “righteous”, as Yehuda himself came to realize (v. 26). Thus, at Yehuda’s lowest point of spiritual and moral collapse YHVH intervened by using that which appeared to be the very symbol of lowliness and humiliation (i.e. Tamar’s impersonation of a prostitute). By admitting his wrongdoing and taking responsibility, Yehuda was true to one of the meanings of his name, that is to "confess" or "admit" (e.g. "He who conceals his transgressions will not prosper, but he who confesses and forsakes them will find compassion" Prov. 28:13, emphasis added).

 

Tamar insisted on "raising up the name of the deceased" (to borrow words from Ruth 4:5). Tamar's real identity and motive were only discovered when she produced a pledge in the form of a seal, cord and staff left to her by her father-in-law, upon her demand to be paid for the “services” she provided him when she masqueraded as a harlot. The pledge given to Tamar was "era'von", of the root a.r.v, which we observed in “erev” - “evening” (in Parashat B’resheet in Genesis 1). This pledge is a guarantee for that which is to come. Indeed, without it, Tamar would have been burned at the stake (ref. vs. 24, 25). When approached by her incensed father-in-law, Tamar presented the pledge with the words:  “By the man to whom these belong, I am with child. And she said, please determine whose these are” (38:25). “Please determine” – "ha’ker na", in Hebrew. How did Tamar know that those were the very words that Yehuda and his brothers used many years before when presenting their father with the bloody tunic of Yoseph: please examine – haker na - it to see whether it is your son's tunic or not" (38:32)? Next week we will encounter the same verb with some variation. And so, not only was the life of Tamar spared, but her action guaranteed that YHVH's principle of redemption was implemented; that is, the bringing forth of life from death (Yehuda having suffered the loss of two sons gained now another two), while also ensuring the continuity of what was to become the tribe of Yehuda. This narrative presents the principle of death as a guarantee of resurrection, as it is written: "Now if we died with Messiah, we believe that we shall also live with Him" (Romans 6:8; 2^nd Tim. 2;11).

 

When it was her time to give birth, Tamar, like Rivka, had twins who, like the former pair, had an innate 'knowledge' of the importance of the birthright. Again, a competition over who would be born first took place. Ultimately, the “breaker", the "portetz", gained the upper hand and was therefore named Peretz (v. 29). Many years later, the prophet Micah will declare, "the breaker goes up before them. They break out, pass through the gate and go out by it. So their king goes on before them and YHVH at their head" (2:13). The subjects of this description are those who will be gathered out of Ya'acov, and who are the remnant of Yisrael who will be "put together like sheep in the fold, like a flock in the midst of its pasture they will be noisy with men".  Thus, not only will the proverbial “Poretz” – Breaker-Leader – be a descendent of Peretz, but so will some of those who are destined to follow Him.

 

That Yoseph is the protagonist of our story is not difficult to determine, and Scripture continues to underscore this fact, not only overtly but also by using subtler means. In chapter 37, as we observed above, and also in 38, the verb y.s.ph continues to show up. And so we read in 38:5: “And she conceived yet again  - va’toseph - and bore a son, and called his name Shelah”. “So Judah came to the realization and said, ‘She has been more righteous than I, because I did not give her to Shelah my son’. And he never knew her again – “velo yasaph” (38:26 ).

 

Among the many lessons that Yehuda was taught by Tamar, his daughter-in-law, he also had to realize that things are not always what they seem to be, a lesson that he will apply one more time when many years later he will meet the ‘mighty Egyptian ruler.’

 

Now back in Egypt, Potiphar's wife, in her attempt to cover up her own disloyalty to her husband and take revenge at the same time, tried to implicate Yoseph, who ran away from her “leaving” his garment in her hand (39:12). “Leaving” is mentioned earlier, when we are told that her husband, Potiphar, “left all that he had in Joseph’s hand” (v. 6). In verses 15 and 18, in recounting the story, Potiphar’s wife keeps emphasizing that Yoseph “left” his garment behind. It seems that “leaving”, “letting go” or “forsaking” – azov – plays no small part in this epoch of Yoseph’s life. From the time that his brothers forsook him, and stripped him of his royal robe (37:23) all the way through to this episode, in which he lost his garment, he had to give up and submit his lot into the hands of others. Yet, Yoseph knew that it was YHVH who was in control of his life and that He would never “leave” or “forsake” him.

 

Potiphar’s wife, like so many others in the course of history, subtly enlisted the various members of her household to join her in an all-out attack on her servant. In the process of her "unscrupulous defaming of Yoseph she makes subtle differentiation between her phrasing of the account to her slaves and subsequently to her husband. She does not employ the term "slaves" when addressing the slaves themselves. Yoseph is simply a Hebrew. To her husband, however, she says, "the Hebrew slave”. In order to win her slaves over and gain their sympathies she is at pains not to create any feeling of solidarity among the slaves for Yoseph, as one of them. After all, it was a common thing for masters to denounce their slaves. They would naturally side with their fellow sufferer. Therefore, she subtly changed her tone and stated that he was not one of them, but a stranger, a Hebrew, the common enemy of all of them. To strengthen the impression and arouse their hostility for Yoseph she did not say that the Hebrew slave came to “me”, but rather: "see, a Hebrew was brought to us, to mock us" (39:14 italics added). In short, the Hebrew man has not only wronged me but all of us; he has dishonored the whole Egyptian nation…  Potiphar's wife in her effort to gain sympathy lumps her slaves together with herself, as part of one family. The common enemy is the Hebrew. The immense gap is forgotten, and the enormous class distinction between slave and master is overlooked in the cause of temporary self-interest."7

 

This Parasha’s two women, whose stories are told side by side, are both involved in sexual promiscuity. However, in spite of the fact that it was Tamar who actually ‘exercised’ her heart’s intent, while the second, Potiphar’s unnamed wife did not, it is the first who was declared righteous (38:26) for having pursued, at all costs, the righteousness of Elohim, i.e. life from the dead for the sake of redemption.

 

After the episode in his master’s house, Yoseph was put in prison, and just like an echo from his previous experience, we read the words: "YHVH was with him, and whatever he did YHVH made to prosper - matzli'ach - " (39:23 italics added). Although our Parasha ends with Yoseph seemingly being forgotten and once again being repaid evil for the good he had done (see 40:9-15, 21), this is just the beginning of what is to become a glorious career.

 

The nation of Yisrael-in-the-making is seen learning the principles of redemption, as each of its figureheads (Yehuda and Yoseph) is exposed to powerful personal experiences pertaining to YHVH's kingdom principles.

 

 

1. Moses on the Witness Stand, Shlomo Ostrovski, Keren Ahava Meshichit, Jerusalem 1976, 1999.

2. Ibid

3. Studies in Bereshit, Toldot 1, Nechama Leibowitz, trans. Aryeh Newman. Eliner Library, Department for Torah Education and Culture in the Diaspora. Hemed Books Inc., Brooklyn, N.Y.

4. Ibid

5. Moses on the Witness Stand, Shlomo Ostrovski, Keren Ahava Meshichit, Jerusalem 1976, 1999.

6. Studies in Bereshit, Toldot 1, Nechama Leibowitz, trans. Aryeh Newman. Eliner  Library, Department for Torah Education and Culture in the Diaspora. Hemed Books Inc., Brooklyn, N.Y.

7. Ibid.

Hebrew Insights into Parashat Va'yish'lach (He sent)

Genesis 32:4 - 36:43

 "Then Ya'acov sent  [va’yishlach] messengers - "mal’a'chim" - before him to his brother Esau…"  (32:3). These are the opening words of our Parasha. "Mal'a’chim", as we know, are angels, messengers, or emissaries. Ya'acov had seen them in dreams (aside from the famous ladder scene in 28:12, an angel also addressed him in a dream in 31:10-13). He had also run into YHVH's messengers when he departed from Lah'van (32:1,2), and now he sends messengers, human “mal'a’chim”, to his brother Esav. The root of "mal'a’ch" (singular) is “la'a'ch” (lamed, alef, chaf), meaning "to send". It is from this verb (which is not in use as such) that we get the noun: "m’la'cha", occupation, work, workmanship (such as the service that was performed in the Mishkan), possession, and more. Later on, when Esav will propose that Ya'acov come along with him with his entire entourage, the latter will refuse and say that he will move "according to the pace of the cattle that are before him…" (33:14). "Cattle" (or “livestock”) here is also "m’la’cha", as the herds would typically go out ahead, or be sent forth in front of the retinue. When "YHVH rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done" (Gen. 2:2), it was His "m'la’cha" from which He had ceased. This is one example of how the Hebrew language is able to accommodate, as it were, in one word or term, cattle, angels, messengers, occupation, the holy service rendered unto YHVH in His Abode, and even His work of creation.

Such diverse ‘blends’ are not uncommon in Hebrew and provide a window into the thought pattern or mentality of the society that gave birth to them. When the root word for "work", for example, is "to send forth," what does it say about the society where this usage originated? What does it tell us about the basic understanding of the concept of "work" or "occupation"? It certainly speaks of production or labor that does not remain in confinement, or only within one's vicinity. Instead, it appears that the work is rendered or performed for the community and is viewed as a mission (by its very definition), and therefore cannot be considered incidental or self-serving. The word "m'la’cha" also refers to the one performing it, again, pointing to a member of a socially inclined community.  The content of the one and only proverb where "m'la’cha" is found validates what the etymology of this word reveals. Thus, Mishley (Proverbs) 24:27 reads, "prepare your work ("m'la’cha") outside, and make it ready for yourself in the field; afterwards, then, build your [own] house" (italics added).

Just before Ya'acov and company venture to cross the Yarden (Jordan) in anticipation of the unknown, the much-concerned Ya'acov prays for safety and deliverance. At the same time, he also expresses gratitude to the Elohim of his fathers, acknowledging his own unworthiness "of all the lovingkindness and of all the faithfulness which You have shown to Your servant; for with my staff I crossed this Jordan, and now I have become two companies (camps - ma'cha'not)" (32:10). The text of 32:11-12a is sung (in Hebrew) by Yonatan Razel. Here is the link:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEVRSKH54fs 

At the end of last week's Parasha, we noted the usage of "double camp" – “machanayim”. Here (in 33:1), Ya'acov actually divides his family into two (out of concern for their safety, but employing a strategy typical of his shrewd disposition). This division hints, yet again, at the future state of his house/family/progeny. We must note, however, that the present division does not conform to how the 'nation of Ya'acov' will eventually split up. In his prayer, in 32:10, he makes reference to having become “two camps” (translated “companies”), which, unlike last week’s “double camp”, here is a plain “shney machanot” (“machaneh” singular, “machanot” plural). When meeting up with his brother, Esav, the latter refers to Ya’acov’s family as a “machaneh” (33:8). In 32:21, Ya’acov is said to have “lodged that night in the camp”.

Shortly after, the following scene ensues: "Now he [Ya’acov] arose that same night and took his two wives, maids, and eleven children, and crossed the ford of the Jabbok. Then Jacob was left alone, and a man wrestled with him until daybreak" (32:22, 24). Wrestle here, "(va)ye'a'vek", is remarkably similar to the proper name "Yabbok” – “Jabbok” (remember that in Hebrew b and v sounds are designated by the same letter), the root of both being a.v/b.k (alef, vet/bet, kof), forming the noun "ah’vak", which is “dust”. Naturally, an 'engagement' such as the one in which Ya'acov and the "man" were involved would have raised no small amount of dust. "Ah’vak" speaks of very fine dust, not the kind that is translated as "dust of the earth", which is "ah'far" (mentioned and discussed in Parashat Chayey Sarah in Gen. 23). The dust contained in the river's name, as well as in the verb chosen to describe Ya'acov's struggle with the unnamed person in the dark, add even more (proverbial) haziness and mystery to the already obscure event. Even Ya'acov's name change to “Yisra'el” is not quite clear. The reason for the change is given as, "For you have striven with Elohim and with men and have prevailed" (32:28). The name was bestowed in response to Ya'acov's demand to be blessed by the "man", whom he was not willing to release until and unless his request was granted. Additionally, the river’s name, “Yabbok”, may also be connected to the root b.k.k (bet, kof, kof), which forms the verb for to “empty out”, thus lending another possible perspective to the scene that had just been imposed upon Ya’acov/Yisrael.

The name “Yisra'el” is a composite word formed by the verb "sara" (s.r.h. sin, resh, hey), to “rule, persist, persevere, strive”, and "el" - “strong” or “mighty one”, from which the word “Elohim” is derived. What was meant by the declaration to Ya’acov, and in what way was his life, at least up to that point, congruent with the definition of this name? Were his 'dusty' struggles on behalf of self taken into account in this lofty pronouncement? Or was it simply a statement of facts, devoid of any qualitative and personal evaluations? Was the name Yisra’el and its meaning the Almighty's way of bestowing pure and unadulterated grace upon him, the name possessing more of a prophetic significance for a future day when Ya'acov would be empowered by his Elohim, rather than a description of present-day facts? Whether Ya’acov ‘merited’ this name at that moment, at least the persistence that he demonstrated that night did, to some degree, validate the meaning of the new name. Incidentally, if one were to read the consonants making up “Yisrael” without any vowels (which would have been absent in the original Scripture writings), it could be read as “yashar-el” – El is upright (and hence in the future even Yaacov-Yisrael will be ‘nicknamed’ Yeshurun – the one who has been made straight/upright).

When it was Ya'acov's turn to ask the ‘mystery man’ for his name, the response came in the form of a question: "Why is it that you ask my name?" (32:29). When Ma’no'ach (Manoah), Shimshon's (Samson) father, asked the very same question of the messenger ("mal’ach") who came to him, the response was "for it is wonderful" (Judges 13:18). Another one who has been conferred the name “wonderful” (counselor) is the “child who was born to us and the son who was given to us” (see Isaiah 9:6).  In the case before us the reply is followed by, "and he blessed him there". What was the blessing? Did it simply constitute the name change? Additionally, seeing that the story of Yaacov is so replete with “mal’achim” it is quite intriguing that in this particular episode the one, whom we just compared to the person who appeared before Shimshon’s parents, is not called a “mal’a’ch”, but rather “a man” – “ish”! But in Yaacov’s eyes, this “man” was Elohim Himself (see 32:31).*

That “mal’achim” are an inextricable part of Ya’acov’s life experience will become evident even later on, as even close to death and while about to bless Yosef’s sons,  when Ya’acov will reflect upon his life he will make reference to the “angel who redeemed me from all evil” and will even invoke him as the one who was to “bless the lads” (Gen. 48:16). In Hosea 12:4, the “man” whom Ya’acov struggled with, who as we noted was not defined as a “mal’ach” in the original scene, is recognized here as such.

After his first heavenly encounter, upon departing from the land, Ya’acov’s experience was marked by the  'Elohim of a place', as he deemed to have been in what he called, "the house of Elohim" (“bet El” - Gen. 28:16,17,19). However, now, upon his return, it is the "face of Elohim" that he encounters – “P'ni'el” (ref. 32:31). An echo of his P'ni'el experience may be detected in what he says to his brother Esav in their encounter in 33:10, "for I see your face (pa’ne'cha) as one sees the face of Elohim ("p'ney Elohim")" (italics added). Ya'acov's perspective certainly seems to have changed. Having seen "Elohim face to face", he is now able to view even Esav differently.

As he re-enters the land of his fathers, Ya'acov walks in the footsteps of his grandfather Avraham (see Gen. 13:6) and comes to Sh'chem (Shechem). His coming to that town after meeting his brother does not pass by unnoticed, "and Ya'acov came safely to the city of Shechem" (33:18 cf. 28:21, where Yaacov prayed for a safe return - shalom). The literal rendering here is, “Ya'acov came "shalem" -  that is, whole, in one piece and in peace to Sh'chem” ("shalem" of course being of the same root as "shalom"). Perhaps this is also an ironic preamble to the events about to unfold, which will turn out to be far from peaceful. Thus, the next chapter introduces us to the conflict between Ya'acov's family and the local populace.

In 34:21, the root sh.l.m comes up again when Cha’mor (Hamor) and his son Sh'chem attempt to talk the town folk into being circumcised. Included in what they said about Ya'acov and his family are also the following words: "these people are peaceful toward us…" - "sh'lemim," “wholehearted, with good intentions, undivided”. We soon learn that nothing could be further from the truth (see 34:25-29).

In chapter 35:1, Elohim tells Ya'acov to "rise ("kum") and go to Bet-El… and make an altar there to Elohim, who appeared before you…" Last week we noted that Ya'acov's call to "rise up" began when he first found himself in the "makom" (place) which he named Bet-El (ref 28:19). Now, having completed a full cycle, Ya'acov is to go back there and continue to "rise up." Truly, from that point onward, Ya'acov's ongoing maturation becomes evident. First, he orders his family to "put away the foreign gods which are among you…" (v. 2). In last week's Parasha (31:32b etc.) we saw that Ya'acov's household was not free of idolatry, indeed the ‘man about the house’ seemed to tolerate that state of affairs -  but not so now! After all the foreign idols and the earrings were gathered (some of which may have been part of the plunder of the Shechemites 34:29), Ya'acov buried them under the "ela", the terebinth tree (v.4). This small tree, along with the "alon" (“oak”) share the root "el", pointing to strength, and hence "el” - "god", which has been surfacing often in these narratives about Ya'acov. In fact, in these Parashot (plural for Parasha) the title "Elohim" (plural of "el"), rather than YHVH, seems to be more prevalent.  In verse 8 of our passage, Rivka's nurse D'vora (Deborah) dies and is buried under the "alon", and thus the place was named Alon Ba'chut ("oak of weeping"). Many other place names bear titles connected to the oak tree (Elon Moreh, Eloney - "oaks of…" – Mamreh, etc.), which is an indigenous tree and is known for its strength and rejuvenation ability. The oak and the terebinth have both remained symbols of strength and durability, and as such, the remnant of the Nation is compared to them in Yishayahu (Isaiah) 6:13: "Yet there will be a tenth portion… and it will again burn, like a terebinth or an oak whose stump remains when it is felled…." (italics added).

Back to our narrative in chapter 35, where Ya'acov calls his Elohim:  "The El who answered me in the day of my distress…" ("tzarati") (35:3, emphasis added).  Before that, in 32:7, we read that he "was terrified and distressed". The word for "distressed" there is "(va)ye'tzar". The two consonants (tz.r tzadi, resh) happen to be used in numerous other words such as “adversity, affliction, anguish, distress, tribulation or trouble”, and in several more such as tza'ar - sorrow; tzar - enemy, adversary; tzarar - bind, tie up, restrict, narrow, scant, cramped, a show of hostility, vexing; tzaraf - smelt, refine, test; matzref - a crucible or instrument of refining; tzir'ah - hornet; tzorev - burn, scorch; tzara'at - leprosy; batzoret - drought; matzor - siege; mitzrayim – straits, Egypt, and more. Yirmiyahu (Jeremiah) 30:7 contains a reference to "tzarat Ya'acov”, Ya'acov's trouble: "Alas! For that day is great, so that none is like it; and it is the time of Jacob’s trouble, but he shall be saved out of it".

Immediately after Dvorah’s burial, Elohim appears before Ya'acov once again, blessing and reminding him that his name is no longer Ya'acov, but Yisrael, repeating the promises He had given to his fathers (ref. 35:9-11). This is the first time that Elohim reveals Himself to Ya’acov also as El-Shaddai (the “breasted Elohim”). The death of the nursemaid signified severance (for Yisrael) from the natural “breasts” and having to now cling to Elohim’s.  In commemoration of the event, Ya'acov-cum-Yisrael sets up a pillar over which he pours oil (v. 14).

Next comes the birth of Binyamin, whom his mother named Ben-Oni, commonly translated “son of my sorrow”, although the usage of “on” as “strength” is much more prevalent. Thus, if the labor and birth of Binyamin (as the name is pronounced in Hebrew) drained all of Rachel’s energy and vigor, she could have easily meant his name to be   "son of my strength". His father, on the other hand, called him "Ben-Yamin", meaning "son of the right (hand)" (35:18). Naming him as he did, Ya'acov was actually conferring upon him a firstborn position, perhaps because he was the first and only one to be born in the Land. In B’resheet 49:3, in Ya’acov’s last words to his sons, he says about Reuven: “you are my firstborn, My might and the beginning of my strength…” “Strength” in this instance is also “on”. Thus a certain symmetry emerges here; Ya’acov’s last words to his sons echo the words of his beloved wife about the youngest son, who exhausted her strength, while Yisrael’s firstborn exhausted more than once his father’s expectations of being mighty and strong  (and hence ended up losing this position, see 1^st Chron. 5:1).

Upon Ra’chel’s death, Ya’acov set up a pillar on her grave (35: 20). Doing this he was actually repeating what he had done in verse 14 above after YHVH had talked to him. In both cases, it says, “va’ya’tzev ma’tze’va”, that is “and he placed a pillar”. The very act of placing, as well as the pillar itself, are of the root y.tz.v. (yod, tzadi, bet/vet), meaning to “station” or “take a stand”. Just as he did in last week’s Parasha (ref 28:18), Ya’acov again commemorates the events in his life with signposts. There is a significant reference to signposts and landmarks in Jeremiah 31:21 (while in Jer. 31:14-15 there is a reference to Rachel), where the command to the virgin daughter of Yisrael, using the same by-now-familiar verb, is issued: “set up” (signposts and landmarks) – ha’tzivi  (imperative, feminine, singular).

In chapter 36, the Parasha’s last, there is a short episode (verses 6 and 7), interposed in the record of Esav's progeny, which explains the physical separation of the brothers - Ya’acov and Esav: "For their property had become too great for them to live together, and the land where they sojourned could not sustain them because of their livestock". This is a clear echo from the past, reminding us of Avraham and Lot's separation (ref. Gen. 13:1-12). However, this piece of information is somewhat curious, because in 32:3 we are told that Esav’s dwelling place was in “Seir, in the country of Edom”. Could it be that up until Ya’acov’s return, his brother held on to the land on both sides of the River?

 Let us also take note of 36:12, which tells us that Esav's firstborn, Elifaz, had a firstborn by his concubine Timnah (who herself was of a noble family of the Horites, 36:22), whom he named Amalek. The latter was to become Yisrael's fiercest enemy. Being a firstborn (and a son of a firstborn), Amalek must have carried his grandfather Esav’s hatred for, and murderous impulse against Ya'acov, and has therefore always targeted the latter’s progeny, resulting in a state of perpetual animosity (ref. Gen. 27:41; Ex. 17:8-14, 16; Deut. 25:17-19).

 

* “Hypostatic union” is the theological term used for the ‘union’ of Messiah’s humanity and divinity.

Hebrew Insights into Parashat Va’ye’tze

 Parashat Va'ye'tze (“and he departed”, literally "and he came out") starts out with Yaacov the fugitive making his way from the land of Yisrael to Cha'ran (Haran). No sooner does he leave Be'er Sheva, “and he came upon a place" (Gen. 28:11). The verb “(va)yifga” indicates that "he happened", or even "stumbled upon" this location, as the sun was setting. That night Yaacov had a dream of “angels” – “mal'a'chim” (ref. v. 12) - ascending and descending a ladder. At the end of the Parasha (and twenty years later), while by himself (although far from being alone), Yaacov once again will "happen”, or "chance" to come across “mal'a'chim” (translated "messengers"), using the same Hebrew verb that we encountered above (“va'yif'ge'u”, ref. 32:1, translated "met" in English). ”Chance" and "messengers of YHVH" are therefore the two elements framing the time capsule of Yaacov's Diaspora experience. The verb “paga” (root p.g.a., pey, gimmel, ayin), seems to point out that from Yaacov's point of view, or experience, the circumstances and the messengers were just ‘chance occurrences’ that he did not plan for nor anticipate. The ‘master planner’ and ‘conniver’ was no longer in command! In fact, he was more like a pawn, or an actor who was taking part in a great dramatic scheme directed by someone other than himself.

Thus, although the opening verse of the Parasha seems to indicate that Yaacov had in mind a set destiny, his path took him to a less defined and (quite likely) less desired place. We just noted that "he came upon a place…” and that “he stopped over for the night because the sun had set…" (28:11). The circumstances were imposed upon Yaacov, and so he stopped at what was a mere "place" (only later, in verse 19, do we find out that there was a town there). As Yaacov lay down, using a stone for a pillow, he had the aforementioned dream, during which Elohim promised to give him the “a’retz” (“ground, land”) that he was lying upon (v. 13), and to bring him back to this very “adama” (“soil”, v. 15; see Parashot* B’resheet – 2:6, and Toldot – 25:25). But as if to suggest that there was a greater dimension (a ‘heavenly’ one) attached to this plot of land and to the very promise, the word was given in a most awesome manner, with YHVH being described as standing above a ladder that connected heaven and earth (while the angels were ascending and descending). Yaacov, therefore, deemed this place to be the "house of Elohim and the gate of heaven" (28:17). The "sulam" – ladder – was linking the earthly with the heavenly, mentioned only once in Scripture. The root s.l.l. (samech, lamed, lamed) means to "elevate, raise up" (e.g. Ps. 68:4) and also "paving an ascending path", or "an ascending path" (e.g. Numbers 20:19). The rungs of this ladder certainly symbolized the path destined for Yaacov's future generations, who were to lift up the One who stood above it.  This future is well described by the prophet Yishayahu: "Go through, go through the gates! Prepare the way for the people; Build up, build up the highway [solu, solu, ha'mesila]! Take out the stones, lift up a banner for the peoples!" (Isaiah 62:10 emphasis added). Or put differently, in the words of the Apostle Paul: "I press toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of Elohim in Messiah Yeshua" (Philippians 3:14 emphasis added), who said of Himself: "…you shall see heaven open, and the angels of Elohim ascending and descending upon the Son of Man" (John 1:51).

Yaacov not only "happened" by this "place", but he also used one of the stones of the "place" for a pillow. He lay down in this "place" and discovered that YHVH was in the "place", and that this "place" was truly awesome! Finally, he named the "place" Bet-El - the "house of Elohim" (28:11,16,17,19). The Hebrew word for "place" is “ma'kom,” of the root k.o.m (kof, vav, mem), meaning to "rise up". This particular “makom” was indeed the location where Yaacov's call to rise up was starting to resound! Almost twenty years from the current scene, Yaacov will be making a demand (addressing his father-in-law), to go back to his “place” (30:25). Being about to leave Lav’han’s estate with his wives, children, and livestock, we read: “Then Jacob rose up…” – va’ya’kam (31:17). We cannot leave Yaacov and “makom” without mentioning “y’kum”, which is translated “all living things”, and is found in B’resheet (Genesis) 7:4, 23, in reference to that which YHVH created (but which He also destroyed).

Needing something tangible to mark his experience, Yaacov picked up the stone on which he had rested his head, lifted it up as a column, and poured oil on top of it (28:18). After naming the place, he made an oath promising to make YHVH his Elohim (providing his conditions are met), adding, "This stone… shall become Elohim's house" (v. 22). Next, we meet the Patriarch-to-be at his desired destination. Upon seeing his beautiful cousin, he mustered up an inordinate amount of vigor, which enabled him to roll a large stone off the "mouth of the well", a feat that ordinarily required several people to accomplish (ref. 29:8-10). Toward the end of the Parasha (in 31:45-47), the covenant made between Yaacov and his father-in-law, Lah'van (Laban), was also marked by a stone, which he again placed uprightly, as well as by a heap of stones which he named "gal'ed", "a witness heap” (31:45-46). Apparently during that season in Yaacov’s life, the "e'vehn" (“stone”) became a marker (‘milestone’) of significant events and experiences.

Many years later, when the elderly Yaacov would pronounce blessings upon his sons on his deathbed, he will give his favorite one, Yosef (Joseph), the longest and most complex of the blessings. In the course of his pronouncement, Yaacov will make mention of the Mighty One of Yaacov, the Shepherd and Stone of Israel - E'vehn Yisrael, all these being titles of YHVH (Gen. 49:24 emphasis and italics added).  This is the only time that specific mention is made of the "Stone of Israel" in the entire Holy Writ, and not surprisingly it was uttered by the mouth of the one who walked a path made up of many stepping stones. Later on in the Word, more stones are uncovered: "the stone which the builders rejected, [and which] has become the chief cornerstone" (Ps. 118:22), as well as the "stone to strike and a rock [tzur] to stumble over" for "the two houses of Israel" (Yaacov's progeny – Yishayahu/Isaiah 8:14, literal translation). Then there is the stone that was laid in Zion, "a tried stone, a tested stone, a costly cornerstone for the foundation…" about which it is said that "he who believes in it [Him] will not be disturbed" (Is. 28:16). Finally, the stone which hit Nebuchadnezzar’s giant statue shattering it to pieces, “became a great mountain and filled the whole earth” (ref. Daniel 2:31-35). Interestingly, the word "e'vehn", which is spelled alef, bet/vet, noon, if read without vowels can be broken up into two words: "av-ben", that is: "father-son". References to Yeshua as the “shepherd” (cf. Matt. 2:6; John 10:2 ff), as well as to the stone/rock (ref. 1st Cor. 10:4) would make Yaacov’s coinage of the term “Shepherd, Stone of Israel”, quite prophetic.

Being a member of the family of Be'tu'el (Bethuel) and Lah'van, Ra’chel's name, not unlike that of her aunt Rivka, is associated with the family business, as “Ra’chel” means a "ewe." Yaacov mentioned Lah'van's ewes and female goats in 31:38 when he lodged his complaint about the lifestyle and conditions that were imposed on him by his father-in-law during their twenty-year association. Ewes as “ra'chel” (plural “r'che'lim”) are mentioned rather rarely in the Tanach, one of those few instances being Yishayahu 53:7, where the Messiah is described as "a ewe - 'ra'chel' - before its shearers".

Whereas Yaacov’s mother Rivka watered the entourage of Avraham’s servants and livestock, in the present episode by the well, her son is the one watering the flocks of his uncle (ref. 29:10). Next Yaacov proceeds to kiss his cousin. In Hebrew these two actions are described thus: “va’ya’shk et hatzon” (and he watered the flocks); “va’yishak… le’Rachel” (“and he kissed… Rachel”). Noticed the alliteration employed here, hinting at what will soon transpire in Yaacov’s life – “watering” (work) in exchange for “kissing” (marrying the one he loved). Shortly afterward, Yaacov is greeted by his uncle, Lah’van, with a kiss. “He embraced him and kissed him” (29:13) uses “va’ye’na’shek” (the more common form of this verb), with the ending being – neshek – which is also the noun for “weapon/s” or, in biblical Hebrew, also for “battle” (e.g. Ps. 140:7; 2nd Kings 10:2; Ezekiel 39:9,10 etc.). Indeed, Lah’van’s initial greeting, with a hug and a kiss, will soon turn into a relationship that is characterized by battles and struggles (Cf.  Proverbs 27:6, where "he who hates bestows abundant kisses", literal translation).

Prior to being united with his beloved, Yaacov was ‘blinded’ into marrying her older sister, whose eyes are described as “delicate” (“ra’kot” in Hebrew). As we remember Yaacov himself took advantage of his father’s blindness to take away the birthright blessing from Esav (ref. 27:36), the word for birthright being “b’chora” (as we saw last week). Upon Yaacov lodging a complaint with his father-in-law, Lah’van, as to having been cheated, the latter retorts by saying: “It is not the practice in our place, to marry off the younger before the first-born – b’chira” (29:36). These events and the terms used in both episodes form quite a tit-for-tat symmetry. But the theme of blindness and firstborn doesn’t end there. When the time came for Yaacov to bless his progeny, starting with his choice of Ephraim and Mensahe, his son Yoseph was quite taken aback when he saw his, now blind, father switching the places of the grandsons. This time, however, impairment of sight did not get in the way, and the elderly Patriarch knew exactly who was in front of him and what he was about to bequeath to each one (ref. chapter 48).

Eleven of Yaacov's twelve sons were born in Cha'ran. Leh'ah gave birth to the first four, whose names express her attempts at appeasing her husband. The firstborn was therefore named - Re’u’ven - meaning, "behold, a son". Next is Shim'on, whose name stems from the verb "to hear" (indicating that her plea for another son has been heard by Elohim). Following him is Leh'vi, of the root "to accompany" (being sure now that upon his birth her husband will ‘accompany’ her). Leh'ah's fourth son was Yehuda, whose name is related to "giving thanks" or "praise". Ra’chel's maid, Bil’ha, whom the former gave to her husband so that she could be (literally) built through her, is next in line.  Rachel used the same words as Sarah did in relationship to Hagar (ref. Gen. 16:2. As we saw there in “being built” – ebaneh – are also embedded the letters for “ben,” son). Her anguish about being barren came to the fore in the names that she gave the sons that her maid bore to Yaacov. The meaning of the name of the first, Dan, is "judgment", or "dispensing justice/vindication". Bilha's second son was Naphtali, meaning "writhing" or "twisting", and by implication "struggle" (denoting Ra’chel's struggle with her sister). However, Leh'ah was not going to stand by and allow her sister to be "built up" through her maid (30:3). Thus, she too gave her maid, Zilpah, to her husband, hoping to have more sons through her. Zilpah birthed Gad, meaning "fortune" (as in "luck"). However, the pronouncement made then by Leah – “ba-gad” –  as she named this one, may also mean “he betrayed” (perhaps in reference to Yaacov’s relationship with her). Zilpa’s next pregnancy yielded Asher, whose name is of the root "happiness". Leh'ah's words, "I am blessed [or happy], for the daughters shall call me blessed" (30:13), recall the words of Miriam (Mary), Yeshua's mother, upon the birth of her Son (ref. Luke 1:48). Leh’ah herself birthed the next one, and named him Yisas'char, from the root to "hire", since she became pregnant with him upon "hiring" Yaacov from Ra’chel for a 'fee,' in the form of a mandrake plant that was picked by Re'uven. But once the baby was born, Leh'ah recalled the other meaning of the name, which is "wages", saying: "Elohim has given me my wages, because I gave my maid to my husband" (30:18). Leh'ah's sixth son was Z'vulun, whose name stems from the rare “zeved”, which means "endowment or gift”. But Leh'ah did not stop there, she said, “now will my husband dwell with me” (30:20). “Dwell” here is “yizbeleni”, which can also mean “honor me”.  Thus, this son’s name, as is the case with some of his siblings’ names, has a twofold meaning, in spite of the root of the words not being identical.

As we have seen frequently, it is not always the grammatical accuracy that is prominent, as is evident also in this narrative, but rather associative thinking which is often prevalent in the Biblical text (and the Hebraic mindset).

After Leh’ah gave birth to Dinah (whose name, like Dan’s, means "judgment" or "justice"), Ra’chel's desire was granted her and she too bore a son. "Elohim has taken away (a'saf) my reproach, [and] she named him Yosef, saying, 'may YHVH add (yosef) to me another son'" (v. 23, 24 emphases added). While Ra’chel was contemplating how her shame and disgrace were being removed by giving birth, she was also expressing hope that this one, who opened up her womb, will serve as a signal for more to follow. The two words, “asaf” (a.s.f., alef, samech, fey), here "take away" while literally "to gather", and “yasaf” (y.s.f., yod, samech, fey) "to add" and "to repeat", are related both in sound and meaning. When looking down the road of history these two words become prophetically significant. Yosef certainly was "added to" by his brother Binyamin (Benjamin), and also by receiving a double portion among the tribes of Yisrael when each of his sons became a tribe in his own right. Prophecy predicts the ingathering of the House of Yosef (and "his companions") on a future day, thus fulfilling the second meaning of his name (see Ez. 37:19).

The two 'camps' of Yaacov's descendants are alluded to at the end of the Parasha. In 32:1-2 Yaacov, as we pointed out before, meets the angels or messengers of YHVH, upon whose sight he exclaims: "This is the camp [or encampment] of Elohim’, and he named the place Ma'cha'na'yim". “Ma'cha'na'yim” is indicative of a double form of “ma'cha'neh”, meaning “camp”. What did Yaacov see when he looked at this ‘band of angels’? What was it about them that caused him to refer to a "camp" or to an "encampment", and why a double one?

In next week's Parasha we will see how, for strategic reasons, Yaacov will divide up his family into two companies (literally “camps”), before going to meet his brother Esav. Was the idea already brewing in his mind when he saw the angels/messengers, and thus he projected duality to their "camp"? Or was it the messengers from YHVH who advised him to so divide up his family before the crucial meeting? Perhaps through something they said or did, he learned that in the future his family would divide up into two camps. Is there a direct connection between the angels who were ascending and descending the ladder, when he first departed from the land of Yisrael, and these particular “mal'achim” here, who greeted him upon his return? Was YHVH thus reminding him of His promises?

We cannot leave our Parasha without examining the verb “to steal” – which occurs eight times in chapter 31 and is used (in Hebrew) in a number of ways. In verse 19 we learn that Ra’chel stole the household idols, and immediately following that it says: “and Jacob stole away”, literally “stole the heart” (of Lav’han). The latter accused his nephew of “stealing away”, with once again the literal rendering being “stealing my heart”, then of “stealing away” – literally “stealing me”, and what’s more, of “stealing the household idols” (vs. 26, 27, 30). In Yaacov’s retort against those accusations, he said, among other things: “These twenty years I have been with you; your ewes and your female goats have not miscarried their young, and I have not eaten the rams of your flock.  That which was torn by beasts I did not bring to you; I bore the loss of it. You required it from my hand, whether stolen by day or stolen by night” (vs. 38-39 italics added). However, the Hebrew rendering of the last expression is: “I was stolen by day and stolen by night” – “ganov gnuvti” (g.n.v, gimmel, noon, bet/vet), describing Yaacov’s state of vulnerability while with his employer. Many years later, his favorite son, Yosef, will repeat these very words while in the Egyptian jail: "For indeed I was stolen away – gunov gunavti - from the land of the Hebrews” (Gen. 40:15).  

Stealing and the fear of such are generally connected to the accumulation and protection of wealth and property. Verse 18 in chapter 31 certainly underscores how much the protagonists value their property. Let’s take a closer look at what is being said here: “And he carried away all his livestock and all his possessions which he had gained, his acquired livestock which he had gained in Padan Aram, to go to his father Isaac in the land of Canaan”. “Livestock” is “mikneh” – that which is purchased (k.n.h – to purchase). In both “acquired” and once again in “livestock” the same root of “purchase” is employed. The wording of this sentence, with all of its repetitions, makes up a very vivid picture of the attitude toward the amassed material goods. Yaacov’s fear is also seen in verse 42 when he calls upon the “Elohim of Avraham and the fear of Yitzchak”. This fear is “pachad”, dread, and not the “fear – awe, respect - of YHVH” – which is “yir’ah”. It seems here that Yaacov feels that it is only by the merit of his forefathers that he can address Elohim, while sadly the three-strand cord between himself, his father, and their Elohim is characterized by… fear.

 

*Parashot, plural for “Parasha” (while “Parashat” is

“Parasha of…”)