Commento su Genesi 33:21

ועמו ארבע מרות איש. To tell us that he had not been appeased even by the substantial gift Yaakov had sent him.

וישא יעקב...ויחץ, he divided them between their respective mothers. Each mother would naturally have stronger concern for her own children and if it came to interceding for her own children would do so with more heart-rending pleas than she would for the children of someone else.

Er sah Esau nicht durch die Geschenke entwaffnet, er hatte seine Kriegsleute nicht entlassen, da teilte er usw. Wie die Weisen diese ganze Geschichte als Programm für unser Verhalten Esau und den anderen Mächten gegenüber betrachten, so lernen wir auch hier, wenn uns auch die Zuversicht zu Gott und seinen Verheißungen erfüllt, doch immer das Unsrige zu tun, אין סומכין על הנס.

ואת לאה וילדיה אחרנים AND LEAH AND HER CHILDREN AFTER — The more behind — the more beloved (Genesis Rabbah 78:8).

וישם, the most beloved he placed last, hoping that Esau’s anger had been blunted by the time he met them.

Es ist möglich, dass bei dieser Anordnung das Gefühl und die größere Anhänglichkeit maßgebend gewesen; allein notwendig ist es nicht; wir werden in Raw Hirsch on Genesis 33: 6 und 7 sofort andere und wahrscheinlichere Motive angedeutet finden.

עבר לפניהם [AND HE HIMSELF] PASSED BEFORE THEM — He thought: if that wicked man comes to fight let him fight me first (Genesis Rabbah 78:8).

והוא עבר לפניהם, as a father who has compassion on his children. He offered himself as the butt of Esau’s anger hoping thereby to save the lives of his children. Either Esau would agree not to harm the children or he would engage Esau in battle to try and save his children if Esau refused his offer of reconciliation.

וישתחו ארצה שבע פעמים “he bowed earthwards seven times.” The Torah could have written “three times,” as we find in connection with David and Yonathan (Samuel I 20,41) where we are told: ויפול לאפיו ארצה וישתחו שלש פעמים, that David bowed his face to the ground and prostrated himself three times before Yonathan (the crown prince). The reason the Torah here mentions the number seven is to remind us that when a righteous person falls down even seven times, he will rise again and regain his composure (compare Proverbs 24,16).

שבע פעמים. According to Bereshit Rabbah 78,8 the reason why he prostrated himself 7 times before Esau is based on Proverbs 24,16 שבע יפול צדיק, that the righteous fall down seven times before remaining upright after getting up.

ויחבקהו AND EMBRACED HIM — His pity was aroused when he saw him prostrating himself so many times (Genesis Rabbah 78:8).

וירץ עשו, his attitude changed suddenly when he realised to what extent Yaakov had humbled himself before him. It is of great concern to us seeing that we live among the descendants of Esau, people who are arrogant, consider themselves invincible. Yaakov’s conduct vis a vis Esau teaches that the only way to escape the sword of Esau is through self degradation and gifts. This corresponds to what our sages taught us (Taanit 20) that the curses of the prophet Achiyah Hashiloni were more beneficial to the Jewish people than the blessing showered upon them by Bileam. Achiyah had cursed the Jewish people describing them as a reed which bends in all directions, a reference to someone demeaning himself rather than facing up to adversaries. (Kings I 14,15) If the Jewish people during the period of the second Temple had taken his advice to heart, the Temple would not have been destroyed. Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai testified to this when he said “if not for the militant extremists the Romans would not have destroyed the Temple.”

וירץ, when Esau saw that Yaakov had humbled himself so much before him, he forgave what he had done to him and his sense of compassion was stirred.

They wept. At that moment love for Eisov awakened in Yaakov as well. Similarly, whenever Eisov’s descendants genuinely acknowledge Yisrael’s greatness, Yisrael reciprocates with feelings of brotherhood.

The truth is that most of the time, "falling one another's neck" only is mentioned when there is a kiss, and therefore the text could have mentioned this, along with the weeping, without explicitly mentioning that they kissed; the kiss would have been understood implicitly like Ya'akov and Yosef in Gen. 46:29 ("And Yosef...went up to meet his father...and fell on his neck and wept on his neck a good while"). In the latter case, Yosef clearly kissed him without it having to be mentioned in the text. It's also possible that in a state of great emotional excitement one would be too wonderstruck and stunned to kiss the other person; perhaps this was the case with Yosef and Ya'akov. However, regarding Ya'akov and Esav there's no doubt that there was no great affection between them, certainly not the type of excitement that would lead to being wonderstruck and stunned.

וישקהו, “and he kissed him.” The word is written with dots on top of the letters. We know that whenever the sages of the massorah have seen fit to place these dots on top of a word or a letter they did so in order to attract our attention. Here the reason they placed these dots was to let us know that this kiss was not whole-hearted. It was a kiss which originated in anger. We find a similarly motivated kiss in Proverbs 27,6 ונעתרות נשיקות שונא, “the kisses of an enemy are profuse.” Amos 1,11 explains the matter when he writes: ויטרוף לעד אפו ועברתו שמרה נצח, “because his anger raged unavailing, and his fury stormed forever. “

There are those who explained these dots as saying that he did not kiss him wholeheartedly. Meaning: וישקהו has dots on all letters except the ש. Thus it is as if it is written ויקהו, as in הקהה את שיניו (blunt his teeth — Pesach Haggadah). This is because he intended to bite him.

dass hier in der Tat ein reines menschliches Gefühl in Esau zum Ausbruch gekommen, dafür bürgt das Wörtchen ויבכו, sie weinten. Einen Kuss kann man heucheln, Tränen, die in solchen Augenblicken ausbrechen, nicht. (בכה verwandt mit פקח ,בקע, ausbrechen, Thränen sind Tropfen aus dem Innersten der menschlichen Seele.( Dieser Kuss und diese Tränen lassen uns auch in Esau den Nachkommen Abrahams erkennen. In Esau kann nicht bloß der wilde Jäger gelegen haben, wie wäre er sonst fähig geworden, ein Beherrscher der ganzen Entwicklung der Menschheit zu werden. Das bloße Schwert, die bloße rohe Gewalt befähigt nicht dazu. Aber auch Esau legt nach und nach, und immer mehr und mehr das Schwert aus der Hand, gibt immer mehr und mehr der Humanität Raum, und zwar ist es gerade Jakob, an dem Esau zumeist Gelegenheit hat zu zeigen, dass und wie das Prinzip der Humanität bei ihm zum Durchbruch zu kommen anfängt. Wenn der Starke das Recht des Starken achtet, so mag es Klugheit sein. Erst wenn der Starke, wie hier Esau, dem Schwachen um den Hals fällt und das Schwert der Gewalt weithin von sich wirft, erst dann zeigt sich, dass Recht und Menschlichkeit in ihm zum Siege kommen.

ויפול על צוארו, “he (Esau) embraced his neck”; the letter י in the word צואריו, is missing here.

וישקהו AND HE KISSED HIM — Dots are placed above the letters of this word, and a difference of opinion is expressed in the Baraitha of Sifré (בהעלותך) as to what these dots are intended to suggest: some explain the dotting as meaning that he did not kiss him with his whole heart, whereas R Simeon the son of Johai said: Is it not well-known that Esau hated Jacob? But at that moment his pity was really aroused and he kissed him with his whole heart. (Sifrei Bamidbar 69.2)

וישקהו, the word has a dot on each of the letters. In Bereshit Rabbah 78,9 Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says that everywhere where you find the dots do not cover each letter of the word underneath we give preference to the meaning of the text as is, without the dots. When there are more dots than letters, we give emphasis in our interpretation to the dots. In this instance, there are as many dots as there are letters in the word וישקהו, so that we understand that Esau kissed Esau sincerely with all his heart. To this Rabbi Yannai countered by asking that if this is indeed so, why bother to put any dots on the word if they do not affect the meaning? We therefore must interpret that originally Esau had intended to bite Yaakov’s neck feigning an embrace. G’d made his teeth as soft as wax and Yaakov’s neck as hard as ivory. ויבכו, one on account of his neck, the other on account of his teeth.

וישקהו, “he kissed him;” this word has dots above the letters.

מי אלה לך WHO ARE THESE WITH THEE? (literally, to thee)? — Who are these that they should be yours (are they your children or your servants)?

WHO ARE THESE WITH THEE? Esau inquired about the women and children, and Jacob modestly answered, The children whom G-d hath graciously given thy servant, as he did not want to say that they were his wives. Esau thereby understood that they were the mothers of the children.

Who are these to you. Are they your children or your servants?.

וישא...מי אלה לך, these women and children whom I see, as well as all the numerous servants, who are they? Yaakov answered him concerning the children, and Esau deduced that the women next to them were their mothers.

מי אלה לך?, “what relations are these of yours? His question concerned all the women and children.

Who are these that they should be yours? Rashi is answering the question: “Who are these” implies that Eisov did not know to whom they belonged. Why did he then say, “To you”? Thus Rashi explains, “That they should be yours.” I.e., are they your sons, servants or hirelings?

Jakob spricht in seiner Erwiderung nur von den Kindern, und indem er diese Antwort auch als Auskunft für die Frauen gelten lässt, deutet er mit großer Feinheit an, wie er diesen seinen Reichtum nächst der göttlichen Gnade in leiblicher und geistiger Hinsicht seinen Frauen verdanke. Seine Frauen sind die Mütter seiner Kinder.

?מי אלה לך, “how are these related to you?” Esau wanted to know if these people were Yaakov’s children or members of his household not biologically related to him, or if they were his slaves.

הילדים אשר חנן אלוקים את עבדך, “the children whom G’d has granted your servant.” Yaakov was conveying a lesson in good manners, not referring to his wives directly, letting Esau surmise that the women concerned were the mothers of these children.

ותגשן השפחות הנה וילדיהן ותשתחוין, “the maid-servants with their children approached and prostrated themselves.” In this instance no mention is made of the children prostrating themselves, as opposed to the verse describing both Rachel and Joseph as prostrating themselves. Other commentators say that originally, the sons of the maidservants did not prostrate themselves, saying that their mothers whose social status was inferior, prostrated themselves caused them to prostrate themselves, whereas they, being sons of Yaakov, would not do so. When they observed that the sons of both Leah and Rachel did prostrate themselves, the sons of the maid-servants felt that they could do no less.

(6-7) ותגשן וגו׳ ותשתחוין ותגש וגו׳ וישתחוו ואחר וגו׳ וישתחוו. Die gewöhnliche Regel, die bei einem auf männliche und weibliche Subjekte zugleich sich beziehenden Prädikate dem männlichen den Vorzug gibt, reicht hier nicht aus, weil ja gleich im ersten Satze das Prädikat in Feminalform steht. Es scheinen vielmehr bei genauerem Zusehen edle interessante Züge, insbesondere das ganze edle, mutige Selbstbewusstsein jüdischer Frauen sich zu verraten, die selbst in äußerster Gefahr aufrecht bleiben, wo das sich das stärkere nennende Geschlecht den Kopf verliert. Wie viel mögen die Frauen und die Kinder in der letzten Zeit von dem bösen Onkel gehört haben, und wie sehr mag ihnen eingeprägt worden sein, mit äußerster Demut dem Gefürchteten entgegenzutreten! Nun, die שפחות, sie und ihre Kinder traten hin und bückten sich. Das sonst ganz überflüssige הנה hebt dies ja noch ganz besonders hervor, darum ותשתחוין, die Mütter mit inbegriffen und zuerst. Waren sie ja, ihrer ganzen Vergangenheit nach, gewöhnt, sich vor noch viel weniger Gefürchteten zu beugen. Darauf trat Lea hin, das edle, stolze, selbstbewusste Weib, die eigentliche Mutter und Trägerin des Hauses, eine Lea beugt sich vor einem Esau — nicht, die Kinder taten es: ושתחוו! Nun hätte Rahel vortreten sollen, da trat Josef als Ritter schützend vor die Mutter und Rahel, ängstlich, Esau möchte zürnen, beugt, um ihn zu entwaffnen, sich rasch, damit sich Josef auch beuge, וישתחוו und so beugten sie sich beide. Darin dürfte denn auch das Motiv zu der oben gegebenen Anordnung zu suchen sein. Er ließ die Mägde voran hintreten, weil er von diesen das demütigste Benehmen erwarten durfte, Rahel und Josef zuletzt, weil er es von diesen am wenigsten erwartete.

ותגשן השפחות....ותשתחון, “the servant maids drew near and prostrated themselves (before Esau);” the emphasis in this verse is on the servant maids, to tell us that their children did not prostrate themselves. They considered their respective mothers as socially inferior to themselves. On the other hand, when the children of Leah observed that their mother prostrated herself they followed their mother’s example and did likewise.

השפחות, הנה וילדיהן ותשתחוין, “the servant maids, they and their children, and they prostrated themselves; but their children did not prostrate themselves, seeing that they were only children of servants, Esau would not insist on their making an obeisance to him. An alternate exegesis: the children only approached Esau as a sign of courtesy together with their respective mothers. They were not willing to prostrate themselves together with their mothers. Their reasoning was that their mothers being servants themselves naturally had to make an obeisance; however they, who were sons of Yaakov, were not prepared to make any obeisance to anyone. When the sons of Leah and Rachel saw that their mothers made an obeisance they decided to do the same. This is why the Torah in verse 7 writes twice: וישתחוו, “they prostrated themselves,” in the masculine mode.

נגש יוסף ורחל JOSEPH AND RACHEL STEPPED NEAR — In the case of all the others the mothers approached before the children, but in the case of Rachel, Joseph came in front of her. He said: “My mother is a beautiful woman: for fear that this wicked man will set his fancy on her I will stand in front of her and prevent him from gazing at her ” As a reward for this Joseph merited the blessing associated with the words עלי עין "with the eye” (Genesis Rabbah 78:10).

נגש יוסף ורחל, normally, the males are mentioned before the females. The reason why Yaakov changed that routine was so that the mothers could precede their children with the exception of Joseph and Rachel. The only reason why in verse 2 Rachel is mentioned ahead of Joseph, is because Leah was mentioned ahead of her children as were the other mothers of Yaakov’s children.

נגש יוסף ורחל. He made Joseph approach Esau before Rachel, seeing that Rachel was so protective of him (her only child) that she made him walk in front of her where she could constantly keep her eye on him, literally keeping him between her hands. There is an aggadic explanation (quoted by Rashi) that Joseph walked in front of his mother on his own initiative because she was so attractive that he wanted to shield her from inquisitive eyes using his tall physique to shield her from such glances. The source of the Midrash cites the wordבן פורת יוסף בן פורת עלי עין, “Joseph is a noble and prominent son, a noble and prominent son already at the source (well) (Genesis 49,22)

נגש יוסף ורחל, Joseph and Rachel approached; it is customary for the Torah when referring to a man and a woman in the same story to mention the name of the man first. Earlier, in verse 2, the Torah had mentioned the women first, even Rachel before Joseph. If you were to ask why Yaakov had not hidden Rachel just as he is supposed to have hidden Dinah? We would have to answer that all of Avraham’s descendants up to that time had strictly refrained from violating a married woman sexually. There was therefore no reason to suspect Esau of doing such a thing. Dinah, was single however, so that Yaakov reasoned that he might violate her. Joseph was not so sure and therefore insisted on walking ahead of his mother. [Seeing that he was at most seven years old at the time, it is difficult to see how he could have protected his mother in such a case. Ed.]

מי לך כל המחנה WHAT MEANEST THOU BY ALL THIS CAMP? — What is all this camp that I have met which belongs to you — as much as to say: what do you intend by it? Scripture really uses the word המחנה in reference to those who were bringing the present. A Midrashic explanation is: He had met companies of angels who thrust him and his men aside, asking them, “Who are you?” These replied, “We belong to Esau”. Whereupon the angels exclaimed, “Smite, smite!” They (Esau’s men) then said, “Let him alone; he is a son of Isaac”. They took no notice of this. “He is a grandson of Abraham”. Again they took no notice of this. “He is Jacob’s brother". Whereupon they said: if this be so, you are one with us” (Genesis Rabbah 78:11).

WHAT MEANEST THOU BY ALL THIS CAMP WHICH I MET? Now Jacob’s servants did everything he had commanded them, but Esau refused to accept the explanation from them. Perhaps due to his haughtiness and his arrogance he did not speak to them and did not ask them, Whose art thou ? and whither goest thou?⁷⁹Above, 32:18. and they were afraid to approach him. And so he now said, What meanest thou by all this camp? for he thought that they belonged to Jacob on the basis of the words of the first messengers [whom Jacob had originally sent to inform Esau of his coming]. It may be that these messengers had so related in Esau’s camp, and it was then conveyed to Esau. Perhaps because there was no other individual on that road that had these things, [he assumed that they belonged to Jacob]. The intent of What meanest thou by all this camp? is: “Who is this person to you that you send him all these?” That is to say, “Who is this superior of yours that you send him all these?” And he answered him, “To find favour in the sight of my lord, for in my eyes, you are the superior and lord.”

?מי לך כל המחנה הזה, a reference to the herds of animals Yaakov had sent.

Who are these to you. Are they your children or your servants?

?ויאמר מי לך, “to whom belong?” In other words, “to whom did you send this whole camp which is at your disposal, and to who did you send all these sheep and cattle?”

מי לך כל המחנה הזה אשר פגשתי, “to whom belongs all this camp which I have encountered? Esau referred to the servants of Yaakov who had preceded him with the herds which have been described in detail as gifts which Esau had been reluctant to accept. Due to his arrogance, he had not deigned to speak to them, and therefore he had not known who they were. Now that he met Yaakov personally, he assumed that these herds had been sent by him, in view of his having previously met the angels that Yaakov had sent out. The thrust of his question was: “who is related to you who is so important that you have bothered to welcome him with such pomp and ceremony?” Yaakov replied simply that this was all in honour of his brother Esau.

Who is this entire camp that I have met... [Rashi says this because] מי לך cannot mean the same as in v. 5, “Who are these to you,” where it meant: “Are they your servants or your sons?” For here, Eisov knew they were the gift-bearers, and surely they were Yaakov’s servants. Furthermore, why would Yaakov reply, “It was to find favor in the eyes of my master”? Perforce, Eisov was asking: “What is its purpose to you?” In other words, “Why did you go to all this trouble?” But Maharshal writes that מי לך means, “Whose are they?” You might object: If so, why did Yaakov reply, “It was to find favor in your eyes”? Should he not have replied first that they were his? The answer is: Eisov was asking, “To whom belongs this entire camp that I should inquire of him, “For what purpose did you send it?” Yaakov replied, “It was to find favor in your eyes,” as Eisov’s main inquiry was about the gift’s purpose.

למצוא חן בעיניך אדוני I have sent it to you my lord in the hope that by accepting it you would do me a favour.

The Midrashic explanation is: He met up with groups of angels... [Rashi knows this] because otherwise, what does “that whole camp” mean? The gift-bearers were only five servants! [You might ask: According to the Midrash,] why did Yaakov answer, “It was to find favor in the eyes of my master”? Will Yaakov find favor in Eisov’s eyes because the angels hit him? The answer is: When Eisov’s people said, “He is Yaakov’s brother,” the angels paid attention. This demonstrated how important Yaakov was in the angels’ eyes, and Yaakov thereby found favor in Eisov’s eyes. In other words, [the angels were] informing Eisov that Yaakov has many friends and allies, and you, too, should be among them.

יהי לך אשר לך BE THINE THAT WHICH IS THINE — In these words he admitted his right to the blessings (Genesis Rabbah 78:11).

And Esau said I have much. Meaning much, but not everything, and Jacob said G-d blessed me and I have everything, because the wicked even if they have all the silver and gold in the World, they still feel missing, and they have much, but not all they need ,therefore said Esau I have much, but not everything, because still there is something missing. If he has a hundred in his hand, he desires two hundred. The righteous, on the other hand, even if they have little on their hands, they are satisfied and happy with their share, and it looks to them as if they have everything

יש לי רב, I most certainly do not need this gift.

ויאמר עשו יש לי רב אחי, Esau said: "I have plenty my brother." Why did Esau have to add the word "my brother" at this point? After all, who else was Esau speaking to? Besides, he should have used the word as an address at the beginning of the sentence, not as an afterthought.

ויאמר עשו, “I do not need your gift for יש לי רב, I possess a great deal.” In Bereshit Rabbah 78,11 the words יש לי רב are understood as meaning: “keep what is yours.” Rabbi Eleazar paraphrased that the validity of a decree of divorce can be attested to only by the people who have signed it. You should not say that if our patriarch Yaakov had not fooled his father he would not have received the blessings. [Yaakov wanted to show Esau that none of these blessings had been fulfilled for him, and that his wealth was totally independent of what his father had assured him of instead of Esau. Ed.] After all these years, Esau finally acknowledged that he had not suffered as a result of Yaakov’s being blessed, so that he said “keep what is yours!”

I have plenty, my brother. For one thing, I have plenty and do not need more; and for another, I am your brother — not your master — so you need not give me tribute.

יש לי רב, “I have a great deal.” Esau spoke very haughtily. If you take a close look at the verses you will note that Yaakov is rather long-winded whereas Esau is brief and succinct. This is proof of his arrogance. Moreover, you will note that Yaakov introduces the name of G’d into every aspect of his speech, such as when he says: “the children with whom G’d has graciously endowed me.” He refers to Esau’s accepting his gift being comparable to his being allowed to see the “face of G’d;” (verse 10) or to G’d as having granted him this wealth (verse 11). Esau, on the other hand, did not refer to G’d a single time.

Here, he conceded the blessings to him. Rashi deduced this from the extra phrase, “Let what you have remain yours.” “I have plenty,” would have sufficed.

אחי, יהי לך אשר לך. Seeing that you are my brother you certainly do not have to put yourself out so much in order for me to make you welcome.

אחי יהי לך אשר לך , “keep what is yours my brother.” Bereshit Rabbah 78,11 comments on these words of Esau that up until that moment Yaakov still entertained doubts whether the blessings were securely his. Now that he heard Esau acknowledge “keep what is yours,” he was visibly relieved concerning the validity of these blessings. He based this on the precise wording of Esau’s comment which contained ten letters. These ten words corresponded to the ten blessings which formed the blessing commencing with the words ויתן לך (Genesis 27,28-29).

Actually, Esau meant to tell Jacob that if his intention in sending him the gift was to simply let him enjoy the animals, he had plenty himself and was in no need of them. If, on the other hand, Jacob gave him the gift in order to benefit thereby personally as he had already indicated when he said: "in order to find favour in my master's eyes," אחי יהי לך, "keep it my brother." He indicated that if he was favourably disposed towards Jacob it was because he was his brother not because of the gift. His own brotherliness could only be proved if he insisted that Jacob take back the gift. Otherwise his brotherliness would be interpreted by others as self-interest.

אל נא, אם נא מצאתי חן בעיניך. "No please; if I have found favour in your eyes, etc." Why did Jacob repeat the word נא, please, in this verse?

The verse should be understood thus. Jacob agreed with Esau that his brotherliness would indeed be recognised better if he did not accept the gift. Such an argument was valid only if it had been made before Esau had already received the gift. Now that Esau had received the gift, it would be most inappropriate to return it; The first אל נא refers to Esau returning the gift. Jacob pleaded with Esau that if he indeed wanted to demonstrate his brotherliness he should do so by keeping the gift. He underlined his argument by saying: ולקחת, "and you have already accepted it." Jacob went on to say כי על כן וג׳, "the nature of this gift is not in order that you should demonstrate brotherliness but rather you should accept what is befitting when one visits high ranking individuals. One does not appear before such individuals empty-handed." Therefore, Jacob said, you can only demonstrate your goodwill towards me by keeping the gift; should you fail to do so you would shame me.

Should you be concerned that the size of the gift is such that it would impoverish me, rest assured I have all that I need; G'd has endowed me very generously. Jacob may even have hinted that he had not noticed any diminution in the size of his flocks even after he had sent the gift to Esau.

When Jacob used the expression יש לי כל "l have all that I need" in describing his economic status, he may have referred to sanctity which is also described by the word כל. There are several blessings in which Israel is compared to the sand of the sea. The meaning of the hyperbole is that just as the sand closes above any hole you make in it when you remove some of it, so Israel will be blessed by not feeling the removal of something from it as a loss, seeing that no visible void be will be left. Jacob described his economic wealth in similar terms when he explained to Esau that he had "everything." The deeper meaning of this concept is evident in Kings I 17,14 when Elijah the prophet assures the woman in the name of G'd that כד הקמח לא כלתה„ "that the jar of flour will not give out until the day that G'd will again let rain fall in the land of Israel." Examine how I explained 33,18: ויבא יעקב שלם עיר שכם. This blessing is one that all the patriarchs enjoyed in varying degrees; this is why we find the Torah using the expressions בכל, מכל or כל respectively in connection with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (compare Baba Batra 47).

אל נא NAY, I PRAY THEE — Do not, I pray thee, speak to me thus.

FORASMUCH AS I HAVE SEEN THY FACE. Jacob said to him: “Take my present from me because I have seen your face, which to me is as one seeth the sight of an angel, ‘vatirtzeini’ (and thou wast pleased with me), as you indicated by accepting the present,” just as G-d ‘rotzeh’ (taketh pleasure) in them that fear Him,⁸⁰Psalms 147:11. by accepting their offerings and sacrifices. This is similar to the verses: ‘Venirtzah’ (And it shall be favourably accepted) for him;⁸¹Leviticus 1:3. Their burnt-offerings and their sacrifices shall be ‘leratzon’ (acceptable) upon Mine altar,⁸²Isaiah 56:7. this being associated with the expressions: Let him be ‘retzui’ (the favoured) of his brethren,⁸³Deuteronomy 33:24. And the light of Thy countenance, for ‘ratzitham’ (Thou wast favourable to them),⁸⁴Psalms 44:4. For Thy servants ‘ratzu’ (take pleasure) in her stones.⁸⁵Ibid., 102:15. All these forms of ratzah connote desire and pleasure in a matter. But Rashi wrote, “Because you have agreed to pardon my offense. Vatirtzeini, you are reconciled with me.” But I have already said⁸⁶Above, 32:21. that it was not advisable for Jacob to bring iniquity to remembrance.⁸⁷See Ezekiel 21:28.

כראות פני אלוקים, as is the custom when one is granted an audience by the people in high office. The Torah already commanded that when appearing in Jerusalem three times a year, the Israelite fulfilling this commandment must not appear before G’d empty-handed. (Exodus 23,15)

ויאמר יעקב...כי על כן ראיתי, this is precisely why it is appropriate that you accept my gift for I give it to you wholeheartedly. When I looked at your face I recognised that it bears the same features as the angel whom I have encountered and who has blessed me. Yaakov alluded to that nocturnal encounter in order to make Esau afraid to harm him. Yaakov had learned from the effect an encounter with angel- albeit it in a nocturnal vision- had had upon Lavan, who had not dared to attack him (29.31) Esau was well aware that Yaakov was a righteous man ever since his youth and he did not hesitate to believe him when told that Yaakov had encounters with angels. When Yaakov flattered Esau that the latter’s features reminded him of the features of the angel he had had a dialogue with, this was an exaggeration, of course. We find a similar exaggeration in Samuel II 14,20 where the woman from Tekoah says to King David that “my lord is wise as an angel of G’d and he knows all that goes on in the land.”

כראות פני אלוקים ותרצני, “having seen you is like seeing an angel of G’d, and for becoming reconciled with me.” According to Rashi, Yaakov acknowledged Esau’s generosity in voluntarily reconciling himself with him. According to Nachmanides this was not the occasion when Yaakov mentioned any guilt at all. He simply told Esau that he would consider his accepting his gift as a source of great satisfaction, something comparable to being granted the vision of an angel. Looking at his brother’s face when it was well disposed towards him, was worth a great deal to him.

Because I have seen your face. That is, I have merited to be reunited with you in such a manner.

Do not tell me this. [Rashi knows this] because אַל always prefaces an order [not to do something]. Thus Rashi explains it as, “Please do not tell me this.” [Rashi is also explaining] that we should not think that “Please no” relates to Eisov’s concession of the blessings, as that cannot be. Rather, “Please no” relates only to Eisov’s statement that he has plenty and does not want the gift. (Maharshal)

(10-11) Jakob gesteht es geradezu: ich muss dich in diesem Augenblicke als den sittlich und geistig Höhern erkennen, du hast den höchsten Sieg über dich errungen, einen Adel der Gesinnung, vor dem ich mich beuge, בכורה und ברכה waren die beiden Punkte, die sie entzweit hatten. Über beide spricht sich Jakob aus. Hinsichtlich der בכורה, dieses geistig sittlichen Momentes, reicht er in dem מנחה dem Bruder die huldigende Anerkennung seines Seelenadels. Hinsichtlich der ברכה spricht er es aus, dass er aus ihr keinen materiellen Vorteil gezogen; was er habe, habe Gott ihm gewährt, und mit diesem durch Gottes Segen Selbsterrungenen habe er alles, und weiter gehen seine Wünsche nicht. Damit war beides gesühnt.

כי על כן ראיתי פניך , “for I have made a special effort to meet you face to face in order to present you with this gift. The word: ראיתי, in the past tense, although at the time described Yaakov had not yet met Esau face to face, may be understood in the same way as when Avraham said to Efron, concerning the money for the field and cave of Machpelah, “נתתי כסף השדה, “I have given the money for the field;” (he had not yet given it though he kept it at hand) (Compare 23,13) Compare also the expression: הרימותי ידי ,“I have raised my hand in an oath,”(14,23) where Avraham is prepared to swear that he will not accept any loot from the King of Sodom. He was about to swear this oath, but had not yet done so.

אם נא מצאתי חן בעיניך ולקחת מנחתי מידי כי על כן ראיתי פניך וגו' IF NOW I HAVE FOUND FAVOUR IN THY EYES THEN TAKE MY PRESENT AT MY HAND: FOR THEREFORE I HAVE SEEN THY FACE etc. — Accept my present because (כי) it is fitting and proper for you to accept my present, for that (על כן) I have seen your face which is as dear to me as the sight of the angel — for I have seen your guardian angel. And a further reason why you should accept my present is ותרצני — because you have agreed to pardon my offence. Why, however, did he mention to him that he had seen the angel? In order that he (Esau) should be afraid of him saying, “He has seen angels and nevertheless escaped safely! Now, certainly, I shall be unable to overcome him” (Sotah 41b)

ותרצני, in order that you will receive me with goodwill. We have a similar construction in Maleachi 1,8 הירצך או הישא פניך?, This consideration also warrants my sending you a lavish gift.

ותרצני, it was a source of satisfaction for me. Alternatively, the word could mean: “after you have displayed your goodwill towards me.”

Like seeing the face. You have received me as if I were a great dignitary; allow me, then, to reciprocate by accepting my gift.

For it is right and proper for you to accept my gift... Rashi adds, “It is right and proper...” since על כן means “because.” [Consequently, על כן means the same as כי.] If so, one of them should have sufficed: either על כן ראיתי פניך, or כי ראיתי פניך. Therefore Rashi added, “For it is right...” so that כי gives the reason for the preceding statement, “Take my present from my hand.” It is as if Yaakov said, “Take my present from my hand because (כי) it is right and proper for you to accept it.” Whereas על כן connects to [what follows:] “Because I have seen your face...”

כראות פני אלוהים, “as if being received by G’d.” (After a pilgrimage) The Torah demanded from each pilgrim to Jerusalem during the three festivals not to appear empty-handed. (Deuteronomy 16,16,(B’reshit Rabbah 78,12.)

ותרצני AND THOU WAST PLEASED WITH ME — You are reconciled with me. Wherever the term רצה (the verb, or the noun רצון) occurs in Scripture it means “propitiating”; old French appaisement; English appeasing. An example is, (Leviticus 22:20) “It shall not be (לרצון) acceptable as a propitiatory sacrifice to you”, for the purpose of the sacrifices is to conciliate and to propitiate. Similarly (Proverbs 10:31) "The lips of the righteous know רצון — they understand to conciliate and propitiate.

Which is esteemed to me like seeing the face of an angel for I have seen your guardian angel... [Rashi is explaining that] when it says, “Like seeing,” it does not mean: “I have seen your face, like I saw the face of a Godly being.” For that would not be a reason to give Eisov a gift. Thus Rashi explains, “Which is esteemed to me like seeing...”

You have become reconciled to me... Rashi is saying that the ו of ותרצני signifies the idea: “and there is another reason to receive the gift.” Otherwise, ותרצני [is not understandable, as] it does not relate to ראות פני אלהים.

ברכתי means MY PRESENT — a present such as this that is brought, when one has an audience with a person after an interval of time is intended only as a greeting. Now wherever the term "blessing” (ברכה) is used in connection with an audience — as for example, (47:7) “Jacob blessed (ויברך) Pharaoh”, and (2 Kings 18:31) "make your peace (ברכה) with me” mentioned in connection with Sennacherib, and also (2 Samuel 8:10) to salute him and to bless him (לברכו)” mentioned in connection with Toi, King of Hamath — they all signify greeting, O.I. saluer. So that here, too: ברכתי really means “mon salut” — my greetings and the term is then transferred to the greeting-present.

TAKE, I PRAY THEE, MY BLESSING. I.e., the gift. Likewise, Make your blessing with me⁸⁸II Kings 18:31. means “bring me a gift” or “make your peace with me.” So also, Take a blessing of thy servant⁸⁹Ibid., 5:15. means “take a present from thy servant.” They called a gift which a man sends of his own free will “a blessing” because he sends it from that with which G-d had blessed him, just as the verse states, Wherewith the Eternal thy G-d hath blessed thee thou shalt give unto him,⁹⁰Deuteronomy 15:14. and just as Scripture said above, And he took of that which he had with him.⁹¹Above, 32:14. However, a specific gift of that which has been agreed upon as due the king is called mas (tribute).

ויפצר בו, in order for him to accept the gift. Yaakov was aware that bribes sway people’s minds; in this case he used the bribe to blind Esau’s judgment. We encounter the very opposite with the prophet Elisha in Kings II 5,16 where he is urged to accept a well deserved gift and refuses, so that Naaman will know that a true servant of the Lord does not accept a reward for someone else’s accomplishment, i.e. G’d having cured Naaman from his leprosy.

קח נא את ברכתי, the word ברכתי here means: “my gift.” It occurs in this sense in Kings II 5,15 קח נא ברכה מאת עבדך, “please accept a gift from your servant.”

חנני, this should by rights be חננני, that is why the first letter נ has a dagesh.

קח נא את ברכתי, “please accept my gift.” When man sends a totally free-willed gift, מנחה, such a gift is described as a ברכה, a blessing. The reason is that he voluntarily gives away something which G’d had blessed him with. A gift which one tenders to a king, on the other hand, is called מס, “tax.”

You did not need to exert yourself for it, whereas I toiled... I.e., since you did not exert yourself over it like I did, it is fitting that you accept it. “Until it has come into your hand” means: until this time when it has already come into your hand.

וכי יש לי כל, “seeing that I have everything;” he meant that he possessed everything in order to confront Esau if the need would arise to do so. This was because Joseph had already been born, so that he was in possession of fire and flame to burn Esau who has been compared by the prophet to mere straw. (Ovadiah I,18)

אשר הבאת לך THAT IS BROUGHT TO THEE without any exertion on your part. I have myself taken the trouble to bring it all this way until it has reached your hand (Genesis Rabbah 78:12).

אשר הובאת לך, by the servants who have been walking ahead of me behind those herds. Besides, I have all the wealth and honour I could wish for.

ויפצר בו ויקח, “insisted, and Esau accepted.” There is a Midrash which explains why Yaakov made a point of having Esau accept his gift. Formerly, Esau and Yaakov had sort of divided the world into two domains, the here and now, and the hereafter. Yaakov had chosen for himself the hereafter, whereas Esau had chosen the here and now. When Esau now found out that Yaakov had acquired a substantial amount of wealth in the here and now, he was liable to demand in exchange part of the hereafter for himself. Yaakov now offered him everything in order to forestall any such claim by Esau. Esau agreed in principle, but stipulated that in the event that any of his people would want to convert to Judaism that Yaakov would accept such converts. This is the meaning of Esau’s proposal in verse 13 and 15.

חַנַּנִי GOD HATH FAVOURED ME — The first נ has a Dagesh, because it serves the purpose of two נ’s since it should have said חַנְנַנִי as we always find the forms of חנן with two נ’s. The third נ here (Rashi means the third that is pronounced) serves as part of the accusative pronominal suffix (meaning “me”), as (Isaiah 29:16) עשני "He made me”, and as (30:20) זבדני “he endowed me”.

ויפצר בו, he pleaded with him insistently until he agreed to accept it.

יש לי כל I HAVE EVERYTHING — all that will supply my needs. But Esau spoke proudly (v. 8): I have (רב) abundance — far more than my needs.

נסעה is an imperative like שִׁמְעָה and שִׁלָחָה which are equivalent to שְׁמַע "hearken!” and שְׁלֵח “send!” Similarly here, נִסְעָהis equivalent to נְסַע “travel on!”, where the נ is a root-letter of the word and not the prefix of the future in which case the word would mean “let us travel on”, similar to the following word ונלכה “and let us go”. The Targum also takes it in this sense, rendering it: “Travel on and let us go". Thus Esau said to Jacob, “Travel thou on from here and let us go etc.

נסעה ונלכה, to Seir, Esau’s home. This was in line with what Yaakov’s messengers had told Esau as being their destination.

ויאמר נסעה, it is possible that Esau’s “suggestion” was in the nature of a command. He was conscious that Yaakov’s progress would be slow due to the animals as well as the children some of whom were of tender age.

The same as נְסַע with the נ being part of the root... It is like שְׁמָעָה and סְלָחָה, where the ש [and ס] is from the root, and the ה is added. Here too, the נ is from the root and the ה is added. It is a simple verb; [the נ is] not from the reflexive form. Neither is the נ from the prefix letters ה, א, י, ת, נ, [in which case it would mean, “Let us go.”] For if so, there should be two נ, one for the root and one for the prefix, and Scripture should have written ננסעה. (Re’m)

ואלכה לננדך means AND I WILL GO SIDE BY SIDE WITH THEE — I will do you this favour: that I will take a longer time on my journey by going slowly as is necessary for you. This is the meaning of לנגדך — alongside of you.

ואלכה לנגדך, I will go faster but will remain close by, נגדך,. Alternately, the word נסעה is suggestion in the plural mode, Esau suggesting that they proceed side by side.

I will move on with you. Alternatively, “I will go along to exchange stories with you”.

The translation of Onkelos טול ונהך. I.e., Onkelos is also a proof to this point. For he does not translate נסעה as נטל (“Let us go”), but as טול, implying it is a noun [meaning “going”]. Whereas נלכה, which refers to both Eisov [and Yaakov], Onkelos translates as ונהך.

עלות עלי WITH YOUNG ARE WITH ME — The sheep and the oxen which are giving suck constitute a charge upon me (עלי) to drive them slowly.

AND ALL THE FLOCKS WILL DIE. Jacob said this in a compassionate manner for he should have said, “And they will all die,” but he would not express himself this way about the children. Neither did he wish to say, “and they will die,” with reference to the herds and the flocks, because he had compassion on the children lest they be included by implication. He also did not want to be verbose and say, “and all the flocks and herds will die.” It may be that the explanation of the verse is that “the children are tender — even the youths shall faint and be weary⁹²Isaiah 40:30. — and they will not want to go, and that the flocks and herds giving suck are a care to me, and if they will be overdriven the flocks will die, as they are small cattle, but the herds [signifying larger cattle] will not die although they will be harmed.”

כי הילדים רכים, for it is my task to take care both of the children of tender age and of the sheep and other animals which are sensitive to overexertion.

ויאמר...עלות עלי, the word עלות is a term denoting mother animals that are still suckling their young. It is important for their well being that they not be hurried.

ומתו כל הצאן, “and all the flocks would die.” Yaakov did not say “and they will all die,” seeing the word “flocks” is the obvious subject, as he did not want to mention the word death in a way that could be understood as applying to the children. Alternately, he mentioned the צאן once more, seeing that they are the smaller animals, the goats and sheep, whereas he refrained from including the cattle in any such context. Esau knew that cattle are more hardy and that Yaakov’s excuse not to keep company with him could not be based on such a phony consideration.

עלות עלי, wie עלה, das Aufsteigen zu der zu Boden sinkenden und am Boden bleibenden toten Materie, zum Ausdruck der von belebten und belebenden Kräften geförderten Entwicklung wird, und daher רפאות תעלה ,עלה ארכה, das beginnende Heilen, und עָלֶה das Blatt bedeutet: so scheint auch עָלָה das in Ent- wicklung begriffene, oder auch das säugende Tier zu bedeuten, das ja fortwährend belebten organischen Stoff für die Entwicklung eines anderen Organismus aus sich erzeugt. Hier scheint es zu sagen: die Tiere, die ich bei mir habe, brauche ich weder zur Arbeit noch zum Schlachten, sondern als Zuchttiere, zur Vermehrung meines Besitzstandes; als solche liegen sie mir ob und habe ich sie mit Rücksicht auf ihre gedeihliche Entwicklung zu behandeln.

כי הילדים רכים, “for the children are frail;” when speaking of the flocks, Yaakov had expressed the fear that they die if rushed;” we find reference to something like this in Job 21,11: וילדיהן ירקדון, “and their children skip about.” Yaakov’s wives and children were riding slowly on camels. (Compare 31,17.)

עלות means bringing up their young. Words of the same root are found in (Lamentations 2:11) “young children (עולל) and the sucklings”: (IsaiahLXV.20) “an infant (עול) of days”: (1 Samuel 6:7) “and two milch kine (עלות)”. old French enfantées.

ודפקום, in your honour, not to delay you.

עלי, it us to me to take care of them by leading them at a leisurely pace.

ודפקום יום אחד AND IF MEN SHOULD OVERDRIVE THEM, wearying them on the journey by making them run, מתו כל הצאן ALL THE FLOCKS WILL DIE.

ודפקום, if they were to be pushed (rushed), Yaakov explained that if his shepherds were to rush these animals even for a single day the sheep would all die from exhaustion. [the author understands Yaakov as telling Esau that “too much can be too little, sometimes.” This is why he quotes Isaiah 30,20. Ed.] In that verse the prophet explains that when G’d provides לחם צר ומים לחץ, “meager bread and scant water,” this is a promise and not a punishment. Too much of a good thing would be counterproductive, would ruin the health of recipient. Hence it is better for the sheep not to travel too fast.

ודפקום has the same meaning as in (Song. 5:2) “Hark, my beloved knocketh (דופק)” — knocks at the door — so that it means to beat the animals in order that they may travel quickly.

ומתו, the prefix ו in this word is analogous to similar prefixes in the words ורכב וסוס in Psalms76,7, and other similar examples. [the point is that the Torah did not write umeytu, but vameytu. Ed.]

יעבר נא אדני LET MY LORD, I PRAY THEE, PASS — do not prolong the time of your journey: pass on at your usual speed even though you thereby get far away from me.

UNTIL I COME UNTO MY LORD UNTO SE’IR. In returning to his land Jacob could have gone by way of the land of Se’ir. Now Esau told him, And I will go before thee,⁹³Verse 12 here. meaning that he will not be separated from him until Jacob returns to his father in order to honor him when he comes into his land. But Jacob said, “I will proceed slowly and let my lord return to the city of his rule, and if I will return by way of his city, he will honor me and go with me as he desires.” This was not a vow on the part of Jacob that he will come to him, for Esau did not need him. Our Rabbis have further said⁹⁴Abodah Zarah 25 b, and mentioned here by Rashi. that Jacob had no intention of returning by way of Se’ir, and his desire was to remove himself from him as much as possible, but he mentioned until I come … unto Se’ir in order to extend the length of his journey [so that if Esau meant to do him harm he would wait until Jacob reached his abode at Se’ir]. This also was wise counsel. The Rabbis have yet another Midrash,⁹⁵Bereshith Rabbah 78:18. which states that Jacob will fulfill his word in the days of the Messiah, as it is said, And saviours shall come up on mount Zion to judge the mount of Esau.⁹⁶Obadiah 1:21. Scripture is saying that the saviors [i.e., the judges of Israel]⁹⁷See Judges 2:16. who are on Mount Zion shall come up to judge the mount of Esau.

עד אשר אבא אל אדוני שעירה, he described the trek as quite long. (compare Avodah Zarah 25)

יעבר נא ...לרגל המלאכה, the cattle is referred to as מלאכה, because cattle are the instruments by means of which most basic agricultural work is performed. We find a similar usage of the word מלאכה in Samuel I 15,9 וכל המלאכה נמבזה ונמס, “and all the inferior cattle (those they killed).”

Please do not extend the length of your trip... Rashi is saying: It does not mean Eisov should go in front, with Yaakov following.

אתנהלה is the same as אתנהל I WILL LEAD ON. The ה at the end of the word is redundant as in (8:21) ארדה “I will go down”, and in (Psalms 85:9) אשמעה “I will hear”.

According to the requirement of the pace of the feet of the work... [Rashi is saying that] the ל of לרגל conveys כפי רגל (“according to the feet”). Accordingly, [with Rashi’s addition of, “Of the pace,”] the verse means: according to the ability of the feet to move, rather than according to the fact that they are feet.

עד אשר אבוא אל אדוני שעירה, “until I shall join up with my lord in Seir. Yaakov meant that once he had settled his wives and children and had made suitable arrangements for his flocks and herds, he would visit his brother in his homeland, Seir. At that time there would be an opportunity to celebrate their reunion with joy.

לאטי SLOWLY — the word means “my slowness", לאט having the meaning of ease, gentleness. Examples are: (Isaiah 8:6) “that go (לאט) softly”; (2 Samuel 18:6) “Deal (לאט) gently for my sake with the young man.” In לאטי the ל is a root-letter and not a prefix, so that the meaning is, “I will lead on at my slow rate”.

לרגל המלאכה ACCORDING TO THE PACE OF THE DROVE — according to the requirements made by the pace of the feet of the cattle which is incumbent on me to drive.

ולרגל הילדים AND ACCORDING TO THE PACE OF THE CHILDREN — according to the speed (רגל) which they are able to keep up.

עד אשר אבא אל אדני שעירה UNTIL I COME UNTO MY LORD UNTO SEIR — He mentioned a much longer journey, for he really intended to go only as far as Succoth (Avodah Zarah 25b). He said, “If he means to do me harm let him wait to do so until I reach his abode at Seir.” Therefore he did not go to Seir. But when will he go? In the days of the Messiah, as it is said (Obadiah 1:21) “And saviours shall go up on Mount Zion to judge the mount of Esau”. There are many Midrashic explanations of this section.

ויאמר למה זה means AND HE SAID, WHY IS IT— that thou shouldst do me a favour which I do not need?”

WHY THIS? LET ME FIND FAVOUR IN THE EYES OF MY LORD. Why this, that you should do me a favor which I do not need? Let me find favour in your eyes, and do not give me any recompense at present [for the gift which I have presented to you]. This is the language of Rashi. Now Jacob’s meaning was that he did not want them and their company at all, the more so since he intended to go another way.
Our Rabbis have further seen an advisory aspect in this entire chapter. Thus they have said:⁹⁵Bereshith Rabbah 78:18. “Before embarking on a journey to the Roman ruler, Rabbi Yanai would peruse this section of the Torah, and he never took Romans with him as an escort on the return journey. One time he did not peruse this section and he took Romans with him, and he had not yet reached Acco when he was compelled to sell his travelling cloak for bribery money.” [The significance attached to this chapter] was because of the Rabbinical tradition that this was the section of the exile. Therefore when Rabbi Yanai entered Rome, in the court of the kings of Edom, [on a mission] concerning public matters, he would peruse this section of the Torah in order to follow the advice of the wise patriarch, for it is he that the generations are to see and emulate. Thus he would not accept the company of the Romans as an escort for they draw no man near to them except for their own interest⁹⁸Aboth 2:3. and take liberties with people’s belongings.

למה זה, אמצא חן בעיניך, "Why do this? Let me find favour in my master's eyes." Jacob preferred an ongoing good relationship with Esau rather than to become the beneficiary of a one-time exaggerated display of Esau's loving concern for him and his family. Jacob hinted at the future when he said אמצא חן, "let me find favour in the future."

ויאמר למה זה אמצא חן בעיני אדוני, this is Yaakov speaking, saying to Esau that he need not bother to honour him so excessively. We find a similar verse in Ruth 2,10 מדוע מצאתי חן בעיניך להכירני, where Ruth expresses her disbelief about the kindly interest taken in her the alien, the widowed stranger, by Boaz.

Let me leave with you. For your protection and honor.

למה זה, אמצא חן בעיניך, “why do that? Let me find favour in the eyes of my lord.” Yaakov absolutely did not want the company of Esau. This too, is an aspect of מעשה אבות סימן לבנים, that the patriarchs’ mode of conduct should serve as a model for their descendants when they find themselves in similar circumstances. We are to refrain from becoming chummy with the secular authorities of the country which hosts us when we are in exile, seeing that friendliness by such rulers reflects only what they can get out of us and not what we can get out of them.

למה זה אמצא חן בעיני אדני, “why all this? Let me find favour in your eyes.” The words למה זה do not form part of the four words למה זה אמצא חן, but they are two separate statements. The first two words refer to Esau’s offer (or threat) to provide Yaakov with an escort. The second part of the verse means: “you have already done enough for me by letting me find favour in your eyes.” Yaakov implied that this was more important to him than an escort of numerous people.

Do you do this favor for me for which I have no need. Rashi is answering the question: למה זה אמצא חן seems to imply that Yaakov did not want to find favor. But did he not send a large gift in order to find favor in Eisov’s eyes? Thus Rashi explains it as, “For what do you do this favor?” Whereas “Let me find favor in your eyes” is a separate statement.

אמצא חן בעיני אדני LET ME FIND FAVOUR IN THE EYES OF MY LORD and do not give me any recompense at present for the gifts I have made you.

What for. Why should you go to the trouble and why do I need it?

Let me find favor. It will be more of a favor to me if you do not send them. Eisov understood from this that Yaakov did not really desire his company and left off speaking to him, although at that point he did not have the heart to harm him.

וישב ביום ההוא עשו לדרכו SO ESAU RETURNED THAT DAY ON HIS WAY — Esau alone returned, but the four hundred men who had accompanied him slipped away from him one by one. When did the Holy One, blessed be He, reward them for this? In the days of David, as it is said (1 Samuel 30:17) (in reference to an attack which he made upon the Amalekites, descendants of Esau) “[and there escaped not a man of them] save four hundred young men who rode upon camels” (Genesis Rabbah 78:15).

On that day Eisov returned. He was perturbed by Yaakov’s attitude towards him and did not part from him with a kiss as Lavan had done. For this reason Yaakov refrained from visiting him in Seir as he had said he would do.

Eisov alone. Whereas the four hundred men that had gone with him slipped away... You might object: Although Eisov alone is mentioned in the verse, his men are tacitly included, for the verse speaks of the primary figure. [And the proof is that] the next verse says, “Yaakov traveled to Sukkos,” which includes Yaakov’s wives and children. Why does the same not apply here? The answer is: Eisov said, “Let me leave some of the people with you,” and we might mistakenly think that they indeed stayed with Yaakov. Thus, it should be clearly written that they went with Eisov, [if in fact they did]. (Re’m) Another answer: It is written in v. 1, “He saw Eisov was coming, and with him, four hundred men.” Since the verse [specially] mentions the four hundred men, it is implied that Eisov was secondary to them. Accordingly, our verse should have mentioned them, too. But this is not the case with Yaakov.

וישב לדרכו שעירה, dieses לדרכו ist nicht ganz klar. Vielleicht ist es bezeichnend für die Richtung, zu welcher Esau nunmehr in seiner Lebens- und Sinnes- weise wieder zurückkehrte. Es ist ja das letzte Mal, dass wir Jakob und Esau zusammen sehen, von da an trennen sich ihre Lebenswege völlig. Wie das ganze Gid Hannascheh- Ereignis erst in fernster Zukunft seiner Verwirklichung und Vollendung harrt, so war dies Zusammentreffen in dem gehobenen Momente nur ein Wahr- und Anzeichen, wie einst am Ende der Tage sich die Beziehungen Jakobs und Esaus zu einander gestalten werden. Für die damalige Gegenwart und für noch geraumere Zeit hinaus heißt es jedoch: Noch desselbigen Tages zog Esau gen Seir zurück "zu seiner gewohnten Weise". Vielleicht!

וישב ביום ההוא עשו, “on that day Esau returned;” according to Rashi, from this verse we derive that the four hundred men who had formed Esau’s entourage had simply melted away, seeing Esau is described as returning alone. They had clearly still been with him in verse 15.

ויבן לו בית AND HE BUILT FOR HIMSELF A HOUSE — He stayed there eighteen months — summer, winter and summer again (Megillah 17a); for the first mention of Succoth (booths which are erected for the cattle) points to the summer (when booths are necessary for the cattle), the mention of building a house to the winter, and the second mention of booths to the next summer.

AND HE BUILT FOR HIMSELF A HOUSE. It is possible that the place was a location which had no city, and he therefore found it necessary to build for himself a house and make booths for his cattle. Or it may be that the expression, and he built for himself a house, means that he built for himself a large house with a strong tower to fortify himself against Esau.

נסע סכותה, He journeyed towards Sukkot. The reason this place was called סוכות was because there Jacob built pens and shelters for his herds and cattle. The Torah purposely does not say לסוכות, "to Sukkot" because this would have led us to believe that this place had already been known by the name סוכות. You may well ask why the Torah bothered to mention the fact that Jacob called the name of the place where he built shelters for his animals סוכות. Perhaps the reason is that Jacob was the first human being who expended so much time, energy, and money in order to assure his animals a degree of comfort both in summer and in winter.

ויעקב...ויבן לו בית, this teaches that it was during the rainy season. In Bereshit Rabbah 78,16 it is concluded from this detail that Yaakov stayed at Sukkot for several years. [other versions say that it was in Bet El where he stayed 18 months or longer. Ed.]

ויבן לו בית, “he built himself a house.” It is possible that this was not an urban area and he had to build himself a house; alternately, the Torah reports that Yaakov built himself a very strong and solid house, one that could serve as a fortification against an attack by Esau.

And built himself a house. He made a permanent house in which to serve Hashem and temporary shelters in which to tend to worldly matters.

He stayed there eighteen months; a summer, a winter, and a summer. Re’m objects: “I do not know why Rashi cites this Midrash [which does not fit with the simple meaning of the verse.] The house and the shelters were all [used] at the same time—the house by Yaakov, and the shelters by his animals—as the verse states. And Rashi writes [in many places], ‘My intention is only to explain the simple meaning.’” Maharshal answers: Scripture wrote סכות twice, and בית once, indicating that “סכות is one summer, בית is a winter...” The Kitzur Mizrachi answers: Rashi cites this Midrash in order to corroborate the twenty-two years in which Yaakov did not fulfill the mitzvah of honoring his parents, mentioned by Rashi in Parshas Vayeishev (37:34).

Es war dies das erste wirkliche Haus, das Jakob sich erbaute, und es weist dies darauf hin, dass er jedenfalls längere Zeit dort verweilte. Der Ort ist übrigens jenseits des Jordans, somit außerhalb Kanaans.

שלם SAFELY (literally, whole, perfect, unimpaired) — unimpaired in body (health) because he was cured of his lameness; whole as regards his possessions for he was not short of anything even though he had given that gift (for his remaining cattle soon bore other young; cf. Rashi on Genesis 30:43); and perfect in his knowledge of the Torah for whilst he was in Laban’s house he had not forgotten what he had before learned (Shabbat 33b).

AND JACOB CAME IN PEACE … FROM PADDAN-ARAM. [This is stated here in the same manner] as a person says to his friend, “That man there has come from between the teeth of the lions and has arrived unhurt.” Similarly here, And Jacob came in peace, i.e., from Laban and from Esau. This is the language of Rashi. But Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra explained that the sense of the verse is that Jacob arrived in peace from his lengthy journey and nothing happened to him, as Scripture now begins to narrate the event of Dinah.
In my opinion Scripture speaks thus since for the length of his sojourn in Succoth⁹⁹Verse 17 here. he was fearful of Esau. Succoth — if it be the one mentioned in the book of Joshua¹⁰⁰Joshua 13:27. — was east of the Jordan, in the kingdom of Sihon, and if it be another city by that name, it was nearer to Se’ir. Thus until he entered the land of Canaan Jacob did not feel safe, for only then did he know that Esau would not touch him for his father was nearby, or because the people of the land would help him as his father was a prince of G-d in their midst, or because the merit of having entered the land would save him. And therefore, Scripture now said that he came in peace into the land of his father’s sojourning¹⁰¹Further, 37:1. since G-d delivered him in his travels out of the hand of all his enemies.¹⁰²II Samuel 22:1. And the Rabbis have said in Bereshith Rabbah¹⁰³78:20. that during all these months that our father Jacob stayed in Succoth he honored Esau with that present enumerated above¹⁰⁴32:14-15. by Scripture for he was afraid of him there, and monthly or annually he would send him a comparable present.

ויבא יעקב שלם, to the city named Shalem. The construction is similar to ותבאנה בית לחם, “they arrived at Bet Lechem.” (Ruth 1,19)

ויבא יעקב שלם עיר שכם, he reached the land of Israel unharmed. This was the fulfillment of the condition he had set in his vow in 28,21 ושבתי בשלום אל בית אבי, “and I will return in peace to the house of my father.” He did not wait until he had physically returned to the house of his father.

ויבא יעקב שלם, Jacob arrived intact. We need to examine the meaning of the word שלם in this context. The Talmud Shabbat 33 provides several homiletical explanations. We also have to know why the Torah has to mention the place where Jacob came from, i.e. Padan Aram. We all know that Jacob had been in Padan Aram. Rashi comments: כאדם האומר לחבירו יצא פלוני מבין שיני אריות ובא שלם, "it is just like a person who reports that someone had escaped from between the teeth of lions without suffering any harm." The problem with this commentary is that the Torah told us something we knew from previous accounts.

ויבא יעקב שלם, meaning that he had not incurred any damage or loss as a result of his encounter with Esau. He had not suffered any deterioration during his entire journey from Aram Naharayim. The matter is underlined to show that now that he had returned to the land of Canaan, his homeland, he suffered the indignity of his daughter Dinah being raped. Seeing that this happened at Shechem, the Torah mentions that town instead of telling us that he was 100% o.k. until he came to Sukkot and built himself a house. The Midrash understands the word שלם as a state of being, i.e. similar to when he had said יש לי כל,“I am blessed with everything,” in response to Esau having said יש לי רוב. “I have lots.”

ויבא יעקב שלם, “Yaakov arrived completely intact, etc.;” according to some commentators the word “Shalem” is the name of a place from which Yaakov proceeded to the city of Shechem, as we are told later that the men there were שלמים אתנו, the reference being to Yaakov and his sons as residing in “Shalem which is near us.” Ibn Ezra writes that the word שלם is an adjective, and describes Yaakov arriving there without mishap. The Torah mentions this as a prelude to the first major upset since he left Lavan, the rape of Dinah. Nachmanides writes that it would be too uncharacteristic for the Torah to report that Yaakov arrived somewhere without mishap, and that Shalem is another name for the city of Shechem. As long as he had remained in Sukkot, he was constantly afraid of Esau and his heart was not at peace. Once he had arrived in the land of Canaan he knew that he would shortly be reunited with his father and that he could enlist the help of his father or that the local people would help him out of respect for his father, and that the very merit of being back in the land of Israel, the Holy Land, would work in his favour. The G’d Who had protected him against all the dangers he had faced during his long journey home, would certainly continue to help while he was on the soil of Eretz Yisrael.

Safe in body, for he was healed from his lameness. [Rashi knows this] because it is written שלם, without specifying [in which way he was whole], implying he was whole in all ways. And [aside from lameness,] what is written in this vein? Before, it said he had property. And now it says, “He bought the part of the field,” implying he [still] had money. And whole in his Torah [knowledge] is learned from, “When he came from Padan Aram.” Why was this [phrase written]? To teach that even though he came from Padan Aram, which is utterly ignorant of Torah, he did not forget what he had learned. (Maharshal)

שלם,^ völlig harmonischer, ungeschmälerter Ganzheit, nicht nur in materieller, sondern auch vor allem in sittlicher Beziehung mit Hinblick auf die sittlichen Gefahren, denen ein Mensch in dem notwendigsten Streben zur Erlangung materieller Selbständigkeit ausgesetzt ist. (Siehe zu Kap.28, 20.) שם ist der Ausdruck der vollendeten Harmonie, insbesondere der vollkommenen Übereinstimmung des Äußern mit dem Innern. Daher verwandt mit צלם. Alle Erscheinungsformen der Dinge sind nicht bloß ein Äußeres, sondern sind vielmehr der höchste adäquate Ausdruck, in welchem sich das innere Wesen ausprägt: alle schöpferische Form ist die Überwältigung des äußeren Stoffes zur höchsten Vollkommenheit nach den von der Natur des Wesens gegebenen Bedingungen. Alle Vollkommenheit ist die harmonische Verwirklichung der Idee. Aller wahrhafter, des Namens שלום würdiger Friede ist, auch fürs bürgerliche Leben, nicht eine nach äußerer Schablone bewirkte, sondern nur von innen heraus dem Wesen und der Idee des bürgerlichen Lebens harmonisch gestaltete Ordnung der Dinge.

ויבא יעשב שלם, “Yaakov arrived intact at Shalem; he arrived at a town named Shalem, a suburb of Sh’chem, named after the ruler of that region. We find similar examples of capitals being identified with the names of their respective rulers, such as in Numbers 21,26, Sichon and Cheshbon. A different interpretation: The place called Shalem was actually the city Sh’chem. As long as Yaakov had not suffered the indignity of Dinah’s rape, his return to the land of Canaan, had been shalem, perfect, without incident. The “Shalem” mentioned here is not the same as the one we have heard about in Genesis 14, i.e. Jerusalem, over which Malki Tzedek was king, because we never found that Sh’chem ruled over Jerusalem.

עיר שכם — the word עיר is equivalent to לעיר to the city of. Similarly we have (Ruth 1:19) “until they came בית לחם” — “to Bethlehem".

AND HE ENCAMPED BEFORE THE CITY. He did not wish to be a transient lodger in the city, but rather he wished that his inaugural entrance into the land should be into his own property. Therefore he encamped in the field and bought a place for the purpose of taking possession of the land. This action constituted a hint that this place will be conquered by him first¹⁰⁵Further, 34:28. before the dwellers of the land would be driven from before his seed, just as I have explained in the case of Abraham.¹⁰⁶Above, 12:6. And our Rabbis have said:¹⁰⁷Bereshith Rabbah 79:7. “He arrived on Friday close to sundown [and was therefore compelled to encamp before the city as there was no time left to enter the city], and he set Sabbath limits [while it was yet day.” The verse thus teaches us that Jacob observed the Sabbath before it was declared on Sinai]. Now according to this opinion of the Rabbis the act of Jacob encamping there first was unintentional. However, in any case, the event hinted to the future as we have said. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra however said that Scripture mentions this in order to inform us that there is great excellence to the Land of Israel, and he who owns a part thereof has it considered as a portion in the World to Come.

עיר שכם, the city of Shechem (who subsequently raped Dinah) The description parallels Numbers 21,26 where Cheshbon is described as the city of Sichon, King of the Emorites. Anyone who explains Shechem as being the name of the city errs. We do not find anywhere that a city is described in such terms, i.e. as עיר ציון, or as עיר ירושלים. Invariably such cities are described with the appropriate definitive article ה i.e. as the word העיר following the name of the city in question. Even assuming that the city under discussion was Shechem, the town may have been renamed in commemoration of the heroism displayed by the sons of Yaakov. We know that the town Luz was renamed Bet El by Yaakov. (28,19) We find the same construction in Joshua 19,7 when the Danites renamed a city “Dan” to honour their tribal father and the acts of heroism by the soldiers of the tribe in capturing the city. Already the first builder of a city, Kayin, is described in Genesis 4,14 as ויקרא שם העיר כשם בנו חנוך, “he named the city in accordance with the name of his son Enoch.” Even the sages of the Midrash who understand the word שלם as an attribute, adjective, describing Yaakov at that point as “whole” in body, spirit, and material wealth, did not catch the plain meaning of the text if that was their intention. It is simply not the style of the Scriptures to express itself in such terms. There is no need for this. Did the Torah have to tell us that Yaakov’s wealth was not impaired as a result of the lavish gift he sent to Esau?

בבאו מפדן ארם, while he was still on the way to his father’s house. He began to fulfill the terms of his vow by building an altar This was in accordance with his promises והיה ה' לי לאלוקים. (the last words of his vow).

את פני העיר; in front of the town. The expression is parallel to Proverbs 17,24 את פני מבין חכמה, “wisdom is in front of (available) any discerning person.” Perhaps the town was small so that there was not enough room to accommodate Yaakov whose entourage consisted of two camps. His presence inside the town might have cramped their quarters. He therefore erected his tent outside the borders of the town on the piece of land he had bought. According to our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 79,6 the words ויחן את פני העיר mean that seeing he arrived on Friday evening shortly before the onset of the Sabbath, he made an Eiruv Techumim, delineating the area he could walk within freely on the Sabbath. We would learn from here that Yaakov observed the Sabbath legislation down to Rabbinic decrees before such a legislation was given to his descendants at Mount Sinai.

ויחן את פני העיר. “He encamped facing the city.” He had stayed there a while and acquired property, fields, vineyards, etc. He did not want to remain a guest anywhere again. His actions served to remind his descendants in the future that they should first conquer this city before moving on to dispossess the Canaanites of their land. Ibn Ezra explains that the whole verse was written to compliment the land of Israel, and to tell us that anyone owning property in the Land of Israel is as if he had already acquired a share in the world to come.

We feel that שלם means what we said earlier that Jacob's possessions were the same as when he set out from Padan Aram. G'd replenished the gift he had given to Esau so that he did not experience any loss. This then was the meaning of the blessing כל which Jacob had in mind when he described himself as having "כל."

ויחן את פני העיר, “he encamped next to the city.” One reason was that he had too many possessions to be absorbed inside the city, and he did not feel comfortable about mingling with the inhabitants of that city.

בבאו מפדן ארם WHEN HE CAME FROM PADAN-ARAM — This is stated here in the same way as a person says to his neighbour, “that man there has come from between the teeth of the lion and has returned unhurt”. Similarly here: he came whole from Padan-aram — from Laban and from Esau who had come to attack him on his journey.

קשיטה is a Meah (a certain coin) — Rabbi Akiba said, “When I visited the coast-towns I found that they called a Meah a Kesittah (Rosh Hashanah 26a). In the Targum it is rendered by חורפן good ones, current everywhere: the same idea as (23:16) “current with the merchant.

קשיטה, a coin by that name.

ויקן את חלקת השדה, ויצב שם מזבח. A reminder of Psalms 137,4 “how can we sing the Lord’s songs on alien soil?”

ויקן ...מיד בני חמור, the Torah does not write “from Chamor,” but from “the sons of Chamor” who was the father of Shechem, as perhaps the land had belonged to the sons and not to him.

ויקרא לו א-ל אלו-הי ישראל. When he prayed he referred to G’d as the G’d Who is the אלו-הי ישראל, corresponding to his vow that והיה ה' לי לאלו-הים, “G’d the merciful will be accepted by me as the G’d of Justice.” This standard of being judged by the attribute of Justice commenced only at the time when Yaakov had qualified for this level of righteousness having been given the additional name of Yisrael.

אבי שכם, seeing that the son was so distinguished the father is identified by reference to his son.

במאה קשיטה, silver coins. According to our sages in Rosh Hashanah 26 Rabbi Akiva once reported that while he walked in a place called Arabia he heard that the local people called a certain coin equivalent to a מעה in the land of Israel a קשיטה. According to Onkelos the meaning of קשיטה may be חורפן, “young lambs.” He translated it as such also in 21,28

ויקרא לו אל אלהי ישראל AND HE CALLED IT EL-ELOHE ISRAEL — It does not mean that the altar was named “The God of Israel” thus bearing a Divine Name, but because the Holy One blessed be He, had been with him and delivered him he called the name of the altar by a term that had an allusion to the miracle, so that the praise of God might be mentioned when people called it by its name. Thus it would mean: He who is El, God — viz, the Holy One, blessed be He — is the God of me whose name is Israel. We find something similar in the case of Moses (Exodus 17:15): “And he called its (the altar’s) name Adonai-Nissi. Not that the altar was called by the Divine Name Adonai, but he named the altar thus, to mention the praise of the Holy One, blessed be He: “The Lord — He is my banner!" Our Rabbis, of blessed memory, expounded it thus: that the Holy One, blessed be He, called Jacob by the name El. The verse therefore should be translated “and the God of Israel called him (Jacob) El” (Megillah 18a). And in reference to all these different explanations it may be said that the words of the Torah — just as a hammer splits the rock into many different pieces (Shabbat 88b) — may be given many different explanations. I however make it my aim to give the plain sense of Scripture.

AND HE CALLED ‘LO’ (IT) E-IL-ELOKEI-ISRAEL. It does not mean that the altar was called “The G-d of Israel,” but because the Holy One, blessed be He, had been with him to deliver him, he named the altar in honor of the miracle so that the praise of the Holy One, blessed be He, would be recalled when people referred to the altar. Thus it would mean, “He Who is E-il is the G-d of me whose name is Israel.” Similarly we find in the case of Moses: And he called its [the altar’s] name Adonai-nissi.¹⁰⁸Exodus 17:15. It is not that the altar was called by the Divine Name Adonai but rather that he named the altar in honor of the miracle so that the praise of the Holy One, blessed be He, might be mentioned: “G-d — He is my banner.” Our Rabbis expounded that the Holy One, blessed be He, called Jacob eil (a great and mighty man). [According to this, the verse should be interpreted as follows: “And the G-d of Israel called Jacob eil].” The words of the Torah are thus as a hammer splitting the rock into many different pieces, admitting many different explanations. I, however, make it my aim to render the plain sense of Scripture. All of this is the language of Rashi.
Now the words of the Rabbi [Rashi] are correct as regards the plain sense of Scripture. And the meaning of the word lo will then be [not “it,” which would refer to the altar, but “him,” which refers to Jacob], just as is the meaning of the same word in the verses: And his father called ‘lo’ (him) Benjamin;¹⁰⁹Genesis, 35:18. ‘Vekarei lecha’ (and thou shalt be called) The repairer of the breach.¹¹⁰Isaiah 58:12.
Know that it was the custom in Israel that names be called which are indicative of the praises of G-d, such as Zuriel¹¹¹Numbers 3:35. (G-d is my rock), Zurishaddai¹¹²Ibid., 7:36. (The Almighty is my rock), for the one who calls that name declares that G-d is his rock and the Almighty is his rock. Likewise, Immanuel¹¹³Isaiah 7:14. (G-d is with us). And so also the name of the Messiah, who will be called, The Eternal is our righteousness,¹¹⁴Jeremiah 23:6. and the name of Jerusalem will be, The Eternal is there.¹¹⁵Ezekiel 48:35. And so did they do with the names of the angels: Gabriel¹¹⁶Daniel 8:16. (G-d is my strength), Michael¹¹⁷Ibid., 10:13. (Who is like unto G-d?), for because of their great power they proclaim with their very name that the strength belongs to G-d and who is like unto Him!
Onkelos however said: “And he worshipped on it before G-d, the G-d of Israel.” In that case the meaning of the word lo will be as bo (“in it” or “on it”), in the same manner as: That thou hast chosen ‘l’ben’ (the son) of Jesse;¹¹⁸I Samuel 20:30. And he took hold ‘lo’ (of him);¹¹⁹II Samuel 15:5. ‘L’mei’ (In the waters) of Meribah.¹²⁰Numbers 20:24. It may be that Scripture is saying, “And he called Him G-d, the G-d of Israel,” and the meaning of the word lo is similar to the usage in these verses: I will get me unto the great men;¹²¹Jeremiah 5:5. Get thee out of thy country.¹²²Above, 12:1.
And by way of the Truth, [that is, the mystic lore of the Cabala, the verse is to be understood] as being in accord with the Midrash which the Rabbis have expounded in Tractate Megillah:¹²³18a. “Whence do we know that the Holy One, blessed be He, called Jacob eil? It is said, And He — the G-d of Israel — called him ‘eil.’ “ There is in this matter a great secret, which the Sages have additionally mentioned in Bereshith Rabbah¹²⁴79:10. in another way: “Jacob said to G-d, ‘Thou art the G-d of those on high, and I am the master of those down below.’” The Sages thereby alluded to that which they constantly say: the likeness of Jacob is engraved in the Heavenly Throne.¹²⁵Tanchuma Numbers 19. The intent [of Jacob’s statement quoted in the Midrash — “I am the master of those down below”] — is that the Divine Glory rests in the Land of Israel. The student learned in the mystic lore of the Cabala will understand.

א-ל אלו-הי ישראל, Who has saved me from Lavan as well as from Esau. The wording means that the same G’d Who had been the G’d of someone called Yaakov, continued in His role as the G’d of Yisrael. Just as people who are called Eliezer (G’s is my help) are also called Immanuel, seeing that the meaning is identical, so also the comparison between the G’d of Yaakov and the G’d of Yisrael. I believe this is the plain meaning of our verse.

ויצב שם, considering that the Torah used the word ויצב instead of ויבן, he built, it is probable that this altar consisted of only one large lab of stone. He placed this stone in the appropriate position to serve as an altar upon which to offer his sacrifice.

Our Sages interpret that it was God who called Yaakov... It is as if it said ויקרא אלקי ישראל ליעקב אל. I.e., Hashem is the Almighty above, and so is Yaakov below. Why? Because the Divine Presence rests on earth because of Yaakov — thus it is considered as if he was the Almighty.

ויצב שם מזבח ויקרא לו וגו׳, beides ungewöhnlich. Das Errichten eines מזבה heißt sonst: עשה ,בנה, nie aber: הציב. Ferner lesen wir sonst von den Vätern nach dem Bauen des Altars ׳ויקרא בשם ד, hier aber ׳ויקרא לו א׳ א׳ י. Schon oben Kap.28. Raw Hirsch on Genesis 33: 10, haben wir das Verhältnis von מצבה (worauf ויצב hinweist) und מזבה zu einander angedeutet. מצבה, der einzelne, von der Natur gereichte Stein, entspricht dem Erinnerungsdenkmal an das, was Gott an uns getan, und war daher אהובה לאבות, die Gott vor allem erst in seinem Walten, in Natur und Geschichte, zu erkennen und zu lehren hatten. Die Menschentat offenbarte mehr den Menschen als Gott, der noch nicht durch die תרי"ג Mizwoth seines Gesetzes die Entfaltung eines ganzen, in seinem Dienste zu vollbringenden Menschen- und Volkslebens zur Offenbarung seines Willens und Waltens geweiht hatte. Bei den אבות hatte daher die מצבה neben dem die Hingebung der Menschentätigkeit an Gott ausdrückenden מזבח ihre vollberechtigte Geltung. Dem entsprechend war auch die מצבה vorzugsweise zu נסכים, zur Anerkennung der von Gott erhaltenen Segensspenden, מזבח aber zu קרבנות, zur Hingebung des ganzen lebendigen Wesens bestimmt. Mit מתן תורה tritt nicht nur מזכח in den Vordergrund, sondern es geht מצבה völlig in ihn auf: die Huldigung Gottes in dem uns von seinen Händen werdenden Geschicke durch מצבה, getrennt von der Dahingebung der ganzen Tätigkeit unseres inneren und äußeren Lebens an die Vollbringung seines Willens, wird sündhaft. Denn nicht mehr in dem, was von Ihm uns, sondern in dem, was von uns Ihm wird, nicht mehr in der Beherrschung des Himmels und der Erde, sondern in der Beherrschung des Menschenlebens, nicht mehr in unserem Geschicke, sondern in unserer Tat will Gott geschaut und offenbar werden, nicht mehr soll unser Tun ein Produkt unseres Geschickes, sondern unser Geschick, unser Wohl und Weh selbst, eine Schöpfung unseres Tuns und Lassens, von ihm bedingt, uns ihm hervorgehend sein; — מצבה schwindet und מזבח allein wird für עולה ומנחה, für זבה ונסכים, die gemeinsame Stätte, die durch ihre Konstruktion und Bedeutung die Aufgabe verkündet: durch die Gottes Gesetz vollbringende Menschentätigkeit die Erde zu einem הרא, zu einem "Gottesberg" zu erheben, auf welchem das alles überwältigende Feuer des Gesetzes — das אש דת als אריא — die weithin leuchtende Offenbarung Gottes auf Erden zu sein bestimmt ist.15 Mit dem Eintritt Jakobs auf den künftigen Boden dieses Gesetzes bezeichnete Jakob vorbereitend diesen Wendepunkt, indem er ויצב שם מזכח, indem er dort einen מזבת als מצבה, als Denkmal errichtete, damit aussprechend, dass hier, auf diesem Boden, das "von Menschen zu Bauende" das "Gottesoffenbarungs-Denkmal" werden, Gott aus dem Menschenleben hervorleuchten solle, es hier nicht gelte, nur Wohl und Wehe dankend oder ergeben aus Gottes Händen hinzunehmen, sondern mit allem und in allem alles Irdische zum göttlichen Wohlgefallen in Vollbringung seines Willens zu umwandeln.

ויקרא לו, He called it אל, the construction is similar to Genesis 20 13: אמרי לי אחי הוא, “say, concerning me, that he is my brother.” The word לו here may be understood as if it had been עלי, “on it,” in other words: he proclaimed the altar as dedicated the G-d Who is the G-d of Israel. This is also how Onkelos translates it. Rashi emphasises that it was not the altar that was called: “the G-d of Israel,” by the nations of the world, but that Yaakov called it by a name that symbolised the special relationship between G-d and Israel on account of all the miracles He had performed for him. It is not so different from when he called the site where he had the dream with the ladder 34 years earlier, Beyt El (Genesis 5,7), after he erected an altar there. We find a similar construction in Judges 6,24 where Gideon built an altar in honour of G-d, and named it: ה' שלום. This is also how we understand the name Moses gave the altar he built after having fought off the Amalekites in Exodus 17,17 which became known as ה' נסי, “the Lord is my Banner.”

ויקרא לו א-ל אלו-הי ישראל, he named the altar thus in commemoration of the fact that G’d had saved him while he was en route, and had sent an angel to accomplish that, and had also changed his name to Yisrael. It is possible that he placed the stone at the site where he had the nocturnal encounter with the angel. We find a parallel to this in Exodus 17,15 where Moses called the altar he had built ה' נסי, “G’d is my miracle,” in commemoration of the miracle G’d had performed for the Israelites enabling them to defeat the Amalekites. Another similar example of the name of G’d being linked to the salvation He brings to the Jewish people, albeit in the future, is found in Jeremiah 23,6, זה שמו אשר יקראו ה' צדקנו. A similar verse occurs in Jeremiah 33,17, whereas in Ezekiel 48,35 we found a city (the new Jerusalem) being named after an event (the redemption), the new name meaning: “the Lord is there.”

Daher auch — ויקרא לו, er verkündete sich und den Seinen. Die Väter קראו בשם ד׳ riefen nach außen im Namen Gottes, riefen die Menschen im Namen Gottes, riefen sie zu dem Bewusstsein, dass Gott nicht nur der ist, der die Welt vor Jahrtausenden erschaffen, sondern der ist, der noch Himmel und Erde trägt und von dem noch unmittelbar jeder gegenwärtige und kommende Moment stammt. Was aber Jakob mit diesem als מצבה errichteten מזבת verkünden wollte, das hatte er nicht nach außen, das hatte er zunächst erst sich und den Seinen zu verkünden: dass k, dass die Allmacht,16 von der alles stammt im Himmel und auf Erden, dass sie אלקי ישראל sein und werden wolle, Israels Gesetzgeber, Richter und Gott, sichtbar nicht nur in Israels Ge- schick, sondern vor allem sichtbar in Israels Tat.

Ist ja dieser Gedanke bis auf den heutigen Tag noch zunächst Erbteil der Jakobsfamilie geblieben und hat noch erst seine Arbeit auch an uns zur vollen Verwirklichung zu bringen. "Glaube und Hoffnung", "Tröstung und Stärkung" diese מצבה-Gedanken sind außer dem jüdischen Kreise das, was vor allem von der "Religion"; von der Beziehung der Menschen zu Gott erwartet wird, und feiert diese daher vorzüglich ihre Siege als Retterin der Menschen im Schiffbruch des Geschickes. Aber die volle Unterwerfung des ganzen vollkräftigen Lebens unter den göttlichen Willen, die Pflegung des Gesetzes als des alleinigen "Baumes des Lebens" für den einzelnen wie die Gesamtheit, die volle und ganze Beherrschung des Lebens in allen Beziehungen und Fügen durch die geoffenbarte Norm des göttlichen Willens, kurz, das Gesetz und der ihm entsprechende freie, freudige Gehorsam, diese Gestaltung des ganzen Menschenlebens zu einem Denkmal der Gottesoffenbarung, das ist annoch der von Jakobs Haus allein gepflegte Schatz, und erst am Ende der Tage werden die Völker sprechen: ויורנו מדרכיו ונלכה בארחתיו. —

Nach der Ansicht יהודה ׳Ts, dass גיד הנשה nicht bloß נכתב במקומו, sondern schon sofort nach dem Ereignis, — נוהג בבני נח — selbst vor מתן תורה von Jakobs Nachkommen beobachtet worden war, erhielte alles Obige noch die tiefere Begründung, dass ja sodann mit גיד הנשה der Anfang gemacht war, den Gottesgedanken nicht mehr nur durch den toten מצבה-Stein, sondern durch die lebendige, das ganze Leben beglückende n^ö-Tat zu verewigen. Um so prägnanter wäre dann das: ויצב שם מזכח וגו׳. —