Hebrew Insights into Parashat Miketz – B’resheet (Genesis): 41 – 44:17

The dungeon scene (or “pit” in Hebrew), which ended last week’s Parasha, shifts almost instantaneously to a palace, and it is there that the present Parasha opens up. A short phrase acts as a bridge, connecting these two very dissimilar places, yet making it clear that the events happening in the palace are not entirely removed from the prison cell and its occupants. 

And so we read: “At the full end – “miketz” - of two years of days” (literal translation)… "Miketz" signifies here the “full end” (to the very last day) of the two years following the fulfillment of the dreams interpreted correctly by Yoseph, for which he was hoping to be rewarded…  “Yet the chief cupbearer did not remember Joseph, but forgot him" (40:23). "Did not remember, but forgot”, is an emphatic and decisive double statement that ended last week’s Parashat Va’yeshev and seemed to seal off Yoseph's fate. Moving on to the next chapter (and Parasha), we find that it begins where the former left off; that is, with dreams. Moreover, Par’oh’s dreams could not have come before the period allotted by YHVH for Yoseph’s prison experience. Thus, the thread connecting the 'dreamer' of this Parasha (Par’oh) to the interpreter of dreams (himself a renowned dreamer, ref. 37: 5 – 10) in last week’s Parasha, begins to unravel. Consequently, that which appears to be the protagonist’s sealed fate takes a sharp and immediate turn, as the times and events of his life are being directed from above (see Ps. 31:15a; Prov. 20:24). Thus, it is only when the two years fully expire that change can come about in Yoseph's life circumstances, and as is so often the case, once change sets in, it gathers momentum. We, therefore, read in 41:14: “Then Pharaoh sent and called Joseph, and they brought him quickly out of the dungeon…” (italics added). However, the “dungeon” mentioned here is “bor” in Hebrew, which is literally a “pit”, the same as the “pit” into which the brothers had cast Yoseph in 37:24. Moreover, in last week’s Parasha, when Yoseph tried to make the chief butler plead his case before Par'oh, he referred to his current setting as a “bor” – pit (40:15) Thus, the instant transformation which was about to take place in the life of Yoseph did not erase the memory of that painful moment where the saga that brought him to his present circumstance started.    

Not only was Yoseph “brought… quickly out of the dungeon [bor-pit] and he shaved”, but he also “changed his clothing” (41:14). Last week we noted Yoseph’s two significant “clothes removal” experiences, which marked humiliation and resignation to his circumstances. Does the present “change of clothes” also mark a new phase in this man’s life? Yes, it does. As we shall see, in verse 42, Yoseph will receive another “change of clothes”.

Parashat Miketz will enumerate certain Egyptian names, words, and terms. Although in most cases they do not originate from the Hebrew language, their Hebrew transliterations happen to have clear meanings. Even if these are mere happenstances or coincidences, they are intriguing! 

Let us begin with the king of Egypt, Pharaoh, “Par'oh” in Hebrew; a title used for all the kings of that land, and means a "great house" in Ancient Egyptian.1. Correspondingly, the Hebrew consonants for this title, p.r.a (pey, resh, ayin), form a word which, according to some linguists means "leader" (Judges 5:2, "for the leading of the leader"; also Deut. 32:42). Others disagree, believing it to mean, "annul, do away with, or unruly", while it also means the “loosening" or “untying of hair" (e.g. Lev. 13:45; Num. 5:18). Pieced together these images create a picture of disorder; perhaps even of an unruly, or unscrupulous ruler, which was true of quite a few of the Pharaohs. In Mishley (Proverbs) 15:32, for example, we read: "He who neglects discipline despises himself", with the verb for "neglect” being “pore'ah”. And in chapter 29 of the same book, in verse 18 it says: "Where there is no vision, the people are unrestrained ("unrestrained" – “yipara”). The consonants P or F (remember, in Hebrew P and F are signified by the same letter) and R, seem to be common in the ancient Egyptian tongue – last week we read about Potiphar - and this week we meet Yoseph's father-in-law whose name is Potiphera (41:45). Later on, these consonants will be found in another well-known Hebrew-Egyptian name. 

As Par'oh continues to endow Yoseph with honor and material wealth, "he had him ride in his second chariot; and they proclaimed before him: "Bow the knee" - or “av'rech” (41:43). “Av'rech” contains the word for "knee", “berech”, which, as we have seen before (in Parashat Lech Lecha, Gen. 12 – 17, particularly in ref. to chapter 12), is also the root for the verb "to bless". Indeed, Yoseph is a great blessing to the people of Egypt. “Av'rech”, however, can also be read as “av-rach”, a "tender father" (for the same word for “tender,” see Prov. 4:3). In next week's Parasha, Yoseph will be heard telling his brothers that, "Elohim made [him] a father to Pharaoh" (45:8). "Tender" in this case may be pointing to his age (he was 30 at the time, see 41:46), while the term "father" denotes a venerated figure, one whose wisdom and counsel are relied upon.  Par'oh’s respect for Yoseph is also expressed by the name that he gives him, “Tzafnat Pa'a'ne'ach” (Zaphnath-Paaneah). The root tz.f.n is not new to us; we examined it when we looked at the four directions of the wind (again in Parashat Lech Lecha, 13:14), and found that this root forms the word for "north", but also for that which is “hidden" or "stored up". Thus, the man who was kidnapped from Egypt’s northern neighbor fits well the description ascribed to "wise men [who] store up knowledge" (Pro. 10:14, italics added)… and also food and provisions. In Ancient Egyptian the two words that make up this name mean, “The god speaks and he lives.”2 

In 41:51, 52, mention is made of Yoseph's sons, whose names are explained according to their respective Hebrew meanings. However, these names (also) happen to sound like Egyptian names, which may have been another reason why Yoseph chose them. Let us begin with the name of the youngest, Ephraim, meaning, "multiplicity of fruit" (v. 52). As we can see, the same consonants that we just noted above: P/F and R, make up this name. Obviously, Yoseph did not want to stand out as a foreigner in the land of his benefactors, but at the same time also wished to express his faith in the promise of the multiplication of the seed that was given to his ancestors. In the blessing and promise to Ya'acov, in 35:11 (Parashat Va’yishalch), Elohim says: "Be fruitful and multiply, a nation and a company of nations shall come from you" (italics added), and likewise in the prayer that Ya'acov prays and blesses Ephraim with, in Parashat Va’ye’chi (ref. 48:4). Thus "fruit" ("pri", of the root p.r.a, pey, resh, hey), is found in this name. It will also be in the title with which Ya’acov will bless Yoseph and confer upon him (again in Parashat Va’yechi) - “ben porat”, that is "son of fruitfulness" (49:22). Prophetically significant is also the fact that “Ephraim” contains the consonants, e.f.r (alef, pey/fey, resh), forming the word “efer” which means "ashes". Interestingly, the prophet Hoshe’ah (Hosea) describes Yisrael/Ephraim, while in their state of sin, as “smoke from a chimney” (13:3).

Yoseph names his firstborn “Mena'she” because Elohim had caused him to forget his past (thereby easing his pain of separation from his family, 41:51) since n.sh.h is the root of a verb which means “to forget”. The “sinew of the thigh” which is not eaten by the sons of Yisrael because of the maiming inflicted upon Ya’acov when he fought the “man” at P’niel, is called in Hebrew “gid ha’nasheh” (ref. Gen. 32:32). Some rabbis and commentators are of the opinion that this title for the thigh (exclusively connected with the above-mentioned episode) - “nasheh” - is of the same root as “forgetfulness” because it was meant as a ‘remembering device’. That is, by not partaking of what is symbolically a “sinew of forgetfulness”, the Israelites were to remember their Elohim, His commandments, and their own identity. But try hard as the nation may have done, forgetfulness did set in quickly, resulting in dire consequences. Nevertheless, in our Parasha it is evident that forgetfulness and remembering are also subject to YHVH’s sovereignty. Thus, the cupbearer’s forgetfulness (a different word in this case than the above n.sh.a., this one is sh.ch.ch – shin, chaf, chet), and subsequent remembrance, are used by YHVH in order to set His plan into motion.  Yoseph also makes use of the same verb when interpreting Par’oh’s dream: “But after that seven years of famine will arise, and all the plenty will be forgotten in the land of Egypt…” (41:30 italics added). Later on, when Yoseph’s brothers show up and bow down to him, his recollection leads him to remember his dreams of long ago (42:9).

Back to Menashe… whose name sounds much like "Moshe" (Moses), which in spite of its Hebrew meaning is most likely also of Egyptian origin, as it was Par’oh’s daughter who gave it to the foundling. Thus, Yoseph’s sons’ names although of significant Hebrew meaning, most likely would not have sounded strange in their environment. 

The book of Hoshe'ah (Hosea) deals at great length with the northern kingdom of Yisrael, and especially with the people of Ephraim. In 13:12, 13, in a specific address to Ephraim, some of the words, or roots, which we have just encountered, are repeated. "The iniquity of Ephraim is bound up - tzarur - is of the same root as the brothers' bundles - tzrorot - in the Parasha's 42:35. "His sin is stored up" - "stored up" is “tzfoona” of the same root which is in Yoseph's Egyptian name “Tzafnat”. In the following verse (13) mention is made of the "opening of the womb", literally "the breaking [forth] of the sons", the word being “mishbar” of the root sh.v/b.r (shin, vet/bet, resh). In our Parasha this word is used for "grain" and as the verb to "supply food”, that is "breaking" of hunger or famine, like the breaking of a fast. Yoseph, the one supplying the provender is called “mashbir”. In Psalm 105: 16, 17 we read about Yoseph and his mission: “Moreover He called for a famine in the land; He destroyed all the provision of bread. He sent a man before them -- Joseph -- who was sold as a slave.” “He destroyed all provision” is rendered in the Hebrew by “shavar” (literally, “broke”) of the afore-mentioned root. Amos deplores those who do not “grieve for the breaking – or affliction - of Joseph” (6:6), which in Hebrew is “shever Yoseph”. It seems that ‘shever’ accompanies Yoseph, both the man and his descendants, in his/their successes and failures. Back to Hoshe’ah... In 14:8 we read, “Ephraim [doubly fruitful], 'What have I to do anymore with idols?' I have heard and observed him. I am like a green cypress tree; Your fruit [“pri”] is found in Me" (italics added).

Last week we saw that Yoseph made YHVH's name known in his foreign environs. He certainly continues to do so when standing before the king (41:16, 25). And like Potiphar before him, Par'oh too acknowledges Yoseph's Elohim: "’ Can we find a man like this, in whom is the spirit of Elohim?’ So Pharaoh said to Joseph, 'Since Elohim has informed you of all this…'" (41:38, 39).

Par’oh not only acknowledges Yoseph’s Elohim, but he also honors Yoseph by having him ride his "second chariot" (41: 43), or “mirkevet ha'mish'neh”. “Mish'neh” is from the root sh.n.h (shin, noon, hey), the primary meaning of which is "to repeat", "extra", “two” and “second”. In 43:12 we read that Ya'acov gives his sons “extra” or “double” (“mishneh”) money to take with them to Egypt, in order to be prepared for any eventuality. Number two, being a repetition of number one, is also seen in 41:32, "Now as for the repeating [“hishanot” - of the same root] of the dream twice…."  In Par'oh's dreams there were two seven-year periods. The word for "year" is “shana”, being again of the root sh.n.h, (‘that which repeats itself’ or ‘is repeated’), but its additional meaning is "to change", as seen for example in Malachi 3:6, "For I, YHVH, do not change [shaniti], therefore you, O sons of Israel are not consumed". Thus, although number two is seemingly a repeat of number one, there is always bound to be a change, or a difference the second time around, as seen by the dual meaning of this word. Yoseph for example, who was second only to Par'oh, was certainly very different from ‘number one’!

Part of Yoseph's advice to Par'oh was to "exact a fifth of the produce… in the seven years of abundance" (41:34). "Exacting a fifth" appears here in verb form, “chimesh”. Number five is “cha'mesh” (ch.m.sh.- chet, mem, shin) in Hebrew, and the verb that stems from it means "to arm" or "to be armed", such as when “YHVH led the people around… and the sons of Israel went up in martial array [“chamushim”=”armed”] from the land of Egypt" (Ex. 13: 18. See also Joshua 1:14, where the same Hebrew verb is used for "armed"). In the verse following this one, that is in Sh’mot (Exodus) 13:19, mention is made of Yoseph’s request to have his bones brought to the Land. Was it the memory of how Yoseph ‘armed’ Egypt that inspired Moshe to use this unique term (“martial array” = “chamushim”) just before taking Yoseph’s bones? Hence Yoseph's advice to Par'oh, here in verse 34, could be read as, "Let Pharaoh arm the land of Egypt in the seven years of plenty" (italics added). And, having followed Yoseph's wise and Godly counsel, Par'oh certainly does (in a manner of speaking) arm his land.

The figure seven, “sheva”, as it pertains to the two seven-year blocks of time, with their abundance on the one hand, and the lack thereof on the other, is repeated time and again in chapter 41.  Abundance, or "plenty" appear here as “sova” (ref. vs. 29 ,30 ,31) which we have already noted as meaning "fullness" (as in a full belly), or “satisfaction”, as well as its closeness to the figure seven – sheva.  YHVH's precise order within humanity and over nature, as He makes provision for “sova” in the two periods of “sheva”, is evident even in the very words themselves.

When "Ya'acov saw that there was grain [“shever”, referred to above] in Egypt, he said to his sons: 'Why are you staring at one another?'" (42:1). Ya'acov's "seeing" and his sons' "staring" - are both of the root "to see", r.a.h (resh, alef, hey). But whereas Ya'acov was looking around and was aware of the situation, his sons were looking at one another, thereby failing to see the reality about them. This is not the first time that these lads were found busy examining one another, instead of being attentive and productive. Last week we read in 37:4: “And when his brothers saw - “va’yir’ou” - that their father loved him [Yoseph] more than all his brothers, they hated him, and could not speak peaceably to him” (italics added).

Yoseph, on the other hand, sees and recognizes his brothers, although he acts as a stranger toward them (ref. 42:7). “Va'yitna'ker” – “he made himself as a stranger” - since “nochri” is “stranger” and “nechar” is a “foreign land”, with the root being n.ch.r (noon, kaf/chaf, resh). However, it is also this very root that forms “nikar”, which means "seen" or "apparent" (the sounds "k" and "ch" are denoted by the same letter here, the letter kaf/chaf). And thus, “to know” or “recognize” is “haker”, a verb we encountered twice in last week’s Parasha. The paradoxical meaning embedded in this root, which is shared by words on recognition and by those which have to do with estrangement, is made very real in the scene before us. Yoseph’s recognition of his brothers, on the one hand, and his estrangement from them, on the other, is summed up well by these two verbs (stemming from the one root) – “va'ya'kirem” - “vayitna'ker”. Thus, seeming opposites are actually two sides of the same coin! This act of estrangement was in fact a tool that Yoseph used to find out more about his brothers, as he desired to become re-acquainted with them and their present disposition. When Ruth was taken by surprise by Boaz’s kindness toward her, she exclaimed: “Why have I found favor in your eyes, that you should recognize/acknowledge me [le’hakireni], since I am a foreigner [nochriya]?” (Ruth 2:10 italics added). “Recognition” has also been used extensively (and ironically) in the previous Parasha, as we noted last week.  When Ya’acov’s sons showed him Yoseph’s bloody tunic, they said: “haker na – recognize… va’yakira – and he recognized…” (37:32-33). During Yehuda’s escapade, he too was confronted by “haker na – recognize – whose are these…” referring to the pledge he left with Tamar while not ‘recognizing’ her as she was pretending to be a ‘stranger’ (ref. 38:25, 15-18). And like his father before him, Yehuda too is said to have “recognized…” – va’yaker (v. 26) the items and (some of) of his past deeds, thus waking up to the needed correction.

The brothers return home, yet it is not long before the provisions come to an end. If they are to go down again to the 'land of plenty', Ya'acov's sons need to convince their father to send their youngest brother, by the demand of the ‘Egyptian ruler’. Yehuda, therefore, pleads with Ya’acov: "Send the lad with me…  I myself will be surety for him; you may hold me responsible for him. If I do not bring him back to you and set him before you, then let me bear the blame before you for ever" (43:8,9). Yehuda is willing to “guarantee” his brother, or to become an “era'von”. Last week, in Parashat Va’yeshev, we saw Yehuda as he was learning something about the principle of redemption from his daughter-in-law. At the time Tamar used a "pledge", also an “era'von”, to force her father-in-law into acknowledging his duty (ref. 38:17, 18). A wiser Yehuda now offers up himself as the pledge or surety, in the process of qualifying for the position of firstborn-redeemer of the family.

After leaving Egypt with their provisions, the brothers’ youngest sibling - Binyamin - is accused of having stolen Yoseph's cup. Yehuda immediately takes responsibility, albeit a collective one, for his brother. His words "Elohim has found out the iniquity of your servants" (44:16) lead us to believe that it is not the alleged crime of stealing to which he was referring. Already in 42:21, while meeting Yoseph for the first time, the brothers acknowledged amongst themselves their guilt toward him.  But whereas at that time Yoseph kept quiet, here he puts Yehuda on the spot, testing him to the utmost: "Far be it from me to do this. The man in whose possession the cup has been found, he shall be my slave; but as for you, go up in peace to your father" (44:17).  With this situation unresolved, and portending the worst, the narrator seals off, leaving us hanging on a cliff!       

But just before closing, let us examine one more term. When Ya'acov acquiesces and commits Binyamin to the mercy of his brothers, he makes his sons take an offering "to the man" (43:11), in spite of the famine and their own great want.  That which is translated as "best produce of the land" is “zimrat ha'aretz”. While “ha'aretz” is "the land" or “the earth”, “zimra” stems from the verb “zamor” (z.m.r., zayin, mem, resh)," to cut off vine branches”, but in many more instances it is "song" or "music". According to the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, "the vast majority of occurrences of this verb and its derivatives focus upon praising the Lord; The people of Israel lift their voices and their instruments to praise their God as long as they live” (Ps. 104:33; 146:2).3 [Several times this praise is tangibly directed toward the "name of the Lord” - the "name," as representing YHVH Himself (Ps. 18:49; 66:4; 135:3)]. What exactly did Ya'acov have in mind when selecting this particular and uncommon term? Do these words reveal something that is perhaps beyond what Ya’acov himself was aware of? Is this alluding to a latter-day, when praise will be brought to the ‘man’ (ref. John 19:5), who is the vine (John 15:1, 5), by the ones who are the proverbial branches? The verb “zamru” (“sing”) is repeated several times in T’hilim (Psalms) 66, and so we read in verse 4: “Kol ha’aretz (the whole earth)… ye’zamru (“will sing praise”) lach (to you)”, echoing the term “zimrat ha’aretz”, as coined by our father Ya’acov. The gift that he was sending with his sons for "the man" contained, among other items, "a little balm, and a little honey, spices and myrrh" (Gen. 43:11 italics added). How ironic that when "the man" - Yoseph - was transported forcibly to the land that he was now overseeing, his then-owners were also carrying "spices, balm and myrrh" (Gen. 37:25)!

1.The New Brown, Driver, Briggs, Gesenius Lexicon, Francis Brown Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody, Mass. 1979.

2..Ibid

3. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, vol. 1, R. Laird Harris ed. Moody Press, Chicago. 1980.

Hebrew Insights into Parashat Va’ye’shev – B’resheet (Genesis): 37 – 40

 

"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.

A Contrary Wind

 

In my recent reading of Matthew chapter 14, I was particularly struck by that wonderful miracle of feeding the 5,000 men, plus women and children, with only five loaves of bread and two fishes. That is quite an impressive, or even phenomenal, feat! Later, while the crowds were dispersing, Yeshua’s disciples went around, each with his own basket, and filled them up with the leftovers. (Although I can’t imagine having fish and bread mixed together in the same container...).  What they did with those baskets is left untold. They may have had in mind to take them with, them so as to feed the poor in the area (who if need be, could be taken care of by Yeshua in an instant, as He has just proven). Yeshua, for His part, “Immediately made His disciples get into the boat and go before Him to the other side, while He sent the multitudes away” (verse 22 emphasis added).

Thus, doing their Master’s bidding, the disciples were in “the boat [which] was now in the middle of the sea, tossed by the waves, for the wind was contrary” (verse 24).  According to the record of this episode, they left the shore in the evening and it was now the fourth watch (i.e. 3 AM in the night). They were exhausted and struggled to manage the boat.  The winds had actually driven them in the opposite direction, to a different destination. They were headed for Bethsaida on the eastern shore but ended up at Gennesaret (verse 34) on the western side. But let me not leave out the most exciting part of this narrative, when Yeshua showed up walking on the water.  ^“And when the disciples saw Him walking on the sea, they were frightened, saying, ‘It is a ghost!’ And they cried out for fear.  But immediately Yeshua spoke to them, saying, ‘Take courage, it is I; do not be afraid…’ And when they [Yeshua and Peter] got into the boat, the wind stopped" (Matthew 14:26-27; 32).  When they arrived at Gennesaret, many came to them and were healed.

In the last fifty years or so, incredible moves of the Spirit have taken place during which ministries, congregations, and churches were greatly blessed with success, material wealth, and spiritual abundance. But at the same time, our world has become darker and darker, to the point that we just may be in the fourth watch of the night, and find that the winds are pushing our ship in directions that are against our aimed-at goal.  We may be exhausted trying to get to our destination or accomplish our vision, while the world around us is, literally, going to hell and can’t do anything about it.  We fear that our children or grandchildren will be growing up in a world of iniquity and sin, the likes of which we have never seen before. We also know that the season of impending judgments is going to be full of distress, turmoil, and stress.  But even though the winds and the seas will rage, we must keep in mind that there is One who can walk above those waves and even calm the seas.

There may even be times, during the tempest, when we will not recognize Yeshua’s appearance and will mistake Him for a phantom or for just a figment of our imagination. However, this is not so when it comes to His voice, when He whispers in our hearts, “Take courage, it is I; do not be afraid…”  Even though we may find ourselves at a different destination, from the one that we set out to reach, we will be relieved knowing that He was faithful to bring us safely to a shore where many can be healed, and restored, including ourselves.

“Elohim is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble.  Therefore we will not fear, though the earth should change, and though the mountains slip into the heart of the sea; though its waters roar and foam, though the mountains quake at its swelling pride. Selah…    YHVH of hosts is with us; the Elohim of Jacob is our stronghold. Selah” (Psalm 46:1-3; 7).

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. 1^st 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; 2^nd 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…”)