창세기 28:10의 주석

ויצא יעקב AND JACOB WENT OUT— Owing to the fact that it was because the daughters of Canaan were evil in the eyes of Isaac, his father, that Esau went to Ishmael, Scripture broke off the narrative contained, in the section dealing with Jacob, and wrote (verse 6 till verse 9), “Now Esau saw that Isaac had blessed [Jacob] etc., that the daughters of Canaan were evil in the eyes of Isaac and so he went to Ishmael” and when it finished this (the account of Esau’s further marriage) it resumes the previous subject.

וילך חרנה, in order to go to Charan.

ויצא יעקב. Jacob departed. The reason that the Torah did not content itself with reporting Jacob's setting out for Padan Aram (28,5) and repeats his departure at this point is to allude to the encounters he had on the way. This, of course, raises the question why the Torah had first reported Jacob as already on the way to Padan Aram. This is especially curious in view of the encounter Jacob had on the way occurring before he even came close to Charan. Why did the Torah report events in a chronologically inverted manner? Besides, why did the Torah speak about חרנה instead of about Jacob being on the way לחרן? While it is true as we learn from Bereshit Rabbah 68,8 that any word which requires a letter ל as a prefix may instead have the letter ה as a suffix, the Torah surely does not employ these variations arbitrarily!

ויצא יעקב מבאר שבע וילך חרנה, it is the custom of Scriptures to first tell us the beginning and the end of something before elaborating on what occurred in the interval. Other examples of this literary style of the Scriptures are found in Genesis 24,10 ויקם וילך אל ארם נהרים, something that did not all occur on the same day. Similarly, we find the phrase צמח בלי יעשה קמח, “it grew without developing into flour,” without mentioning all the intermediary stages before relating the outcome. (Hoseah 8,7) The reason we have such formulations is because the author hastens to get to the point of the story.

ויצא יעקב...וילך חרנה. He set out with the destination Charan in his mind. Before he reached this destination the following incidents occurred.

ויצא יעקב מבאר שבע, ”Yaakov left Beer Sheva, etc. “ According to allegorical commentaries, the earth literally contracted beneath his feet so that the words וילך חרנה mean that he arrived at Charan on the same day. According to the plain meaning of the text, the verse described that Yaakov was headed for Charan. Other commentators understand the words וילך חרנה as telling us where Yaakov would take up residence from now on, the Torah then filling in what happened on the way before Yaakov reached his destination, his nocturnal encounter with the angels climbing the ladder, etc.

When it finished it went back to the previous subject. I.e., Rashi’s original question was: Why does Scripture need to repeat the point and write, “Yaakov left,” when it had already written (28:5), “Yitzchok sent Yaakov on his way”? Rashi answers: Since the narrative of Yaakov was interrupted by the subject of Eisov—and proceeds to explain why it was interrupted: since [Yitzchok sent Yaakov away,] Eisov understood that Yitzchok considered the daughters of Canaan evil, so Eisov went to Yishmael. After explaining why the narrative was interrupted, Rashi goes back to complete his explanation of why Scripture repeats the point: “When it finished...” (Kitzur Mizrachi, see there)

Obgleich es schon oben Raw Hirsch on Genesis 28: 5 heißt: וילך פדנה ארם so wird doch hier mit diesem Ausgang aus väterlichem Hause wieder begonnen, weil eben damit die selbständige Geschichte Jakobs sich einleitet.

ויצא יעקב, “Yaakov departed;” Yaakov is described as if he had been totally alone when leaving his father’s home, although no doubt he had taken along a dowry for his future wife (as had Eliezer at the time). The Torah avoided mentioning this as he was fleeing from the hatred of his brother and did not wish to make his departure public. [I have reconstructed the commentary, as the way it stands, the author claiming that this paragraph had not been written separately from the previous one, does not make sense, as in none of our versions of the Chumash is it not written in the normal manner, leaving space for several words both before and after this paragraph. Ed.]

ויצא יעקב, “Yaakov departed;” Rashi comments on these words that Yaakov was forced to leave the Holy Land on account of the women in that land being so unsuitable for him to marry. He means that the Torah had inserted matters in the story that were not connected to Yaakov starting with verse 6 of our chapter. Esau had not previously realised how opposed his father and mother had been to his wives. Now it resumes the story of Yaakov. If not for that, the name Yaakov would not have been needed at the beginning of this verse. Seeing that Yaakov left his home without fanfare, like a thief in the night, the Torah needed to refer to his departure as having been a fact. [The manner in which this paragraph is written in the Torah scrolls reflects the fact that it was not drawn to the reader’s immediate attention by a new line or new paragraph having been started. It begins at the end of a line after space has been left open for only three letters in the same line. All other portions, with the exception of Vayechi where there is only room for a single letter between the conclusion of the previous portion. Ed.] and the beginning of the new one, commence after a more distinct separation from the previous portion. One reason for this absence of a separation is to hint that Yaakov hid himself to study for fourteen years in the yeshiva of Ever. Another reason is to point out that his departure was hidden from Esav. An additional reason for the slim separation from verse is the fact that the story had been interrupted with telling us that his father had sent him to Padan Arom in order to take a wife there from Rivkah’s family. The departure is mentioned a second time, on account of the dream with the ladder, and his proceeding to his destination.

ויצא [AND JACOB] WENT OUT—It need have written simply “And Jacob went to Haran’’; why then does it mention his departure from Beersheba? But it intends to tell us that the departure of a righteous person from his city makes an impression. As long as a righteous man is in his city he is its glory and splendour and beauty; when he leaves it, there depart also its glory, its splendour and its beauty. This, too, is the meaning of (Ruth 1:7) “And she went forth out of the place”, stated in reference to Naomi and Ruth (Genesis Rabbah 68:6).

It had only to be written: “And Yaakov went to Charan...” [Rashi knows this] because it is written in another place, “Yaakov... went to Paddan Aram” (28:5), without writing beforehand, “Yaakov left.” Perforce, if he went to Paddan Aram, he left Beer Sheva! Here too, Scripture should have written only, “Yaakov went.”

The Torah intended to relate all that happened to Jacob from the time he left his home. The Torah reports that initially all Jacob did was depart, i.e. ויצא. This did not involve any travelling on his part. The person who walked i.e. וילך, was someone called חרנה. This "Charanah" set out from his home to come and welcome Jacob.

Wenn Abraham die Wurzel des jüdischen Volkes ist, Jizchak die Fortsetzung zum Stamm, so ist Jakob der eigentliche Stamm selbst. Darum sprach auch Jizchak zu ihm: ׳ויתן לך את ברכת אברהם וגו. Ist ja Jakob derjenige, der dem künftigen Volk Namen und Geschick vererben soll. Wir heißen nicht Abrahams Volk, sondern: Jisrael! Jakob sehen wir daher wie Abraham ein zweites לך לך erfüllen, sehen ihn, unsern nächsten Stammvater, auf den die ganze Geschichte von Abraham bis Jizchak hingearbeitet hätte, gleichfalls isoliert hinausziehen; jedoch ganz anders als Abraham. Abraham zog freilich in die Isolierung aus der Heimat; aber als Hausherr, mit Weib und Genossen, Ver wandten und Vermögen. Jakob aber sehen wir durch Verhältnisse bewogen, freiwillig hinauszuziehen, ohne das mindeste mit sich zu nehmen. Er ließ vielmehr alles dem älteren Bruder zurück, damit dieser erkennen konnte, es habe sich bei der בכורה um keinen materiellen Vortheil gehandelt.

באר שבע, a site especially suited for the swearing of oaths. According to a midrash, Yaakov avoided staying at that place so as not to afford Avimelech an opportunity to extend the validity of the oath Avraham had sworn and which Yitzchok had confirmed for another generation or more. The באר שבע mentioned he is located close to Chevron, not to be confused with the modern B’eer Sheva, located far more to the south. It was the באר שבע in which Avraham had sojourned for many years. It was very near קרית ארבע. The fact that the Torah reports Avraham returning from the Akeydah and settling in B’eer Sheva in 22,19 and 6 verses later that Sarah died and he went to Kiryat Arba to bury her, certainly suggests that these two locations could not have been far apart.

וילך חרנה means he went out TO GO TO HARAN.

This tells us that the departure... makes an impression... [Rashi is answering the question:] Why did Scripture write two departures, so to speak? It says, “Yaakov left,” and also, “He went towards Charan,” [which itself implies that he left.] Perforce [the answer is]: One teaches that his person departed, and the other teaches that the brilliance, splendor and glory departed. (Re’m) Maharshal comments on this: Re’m’s explanation differs from Bereishis Rabboh (68:7), which says: It is written ויצא (singular), and not ויצאו. But did not also camels and other animals leave with him? Perforce, it teaches: “Its brilliance has departed....” [Maharshal continues:] It seems that we need both the explanation of Re’m and of Bereishis Rabboh, as follows: Since it is written “Yaakov left” and also “He went,” it is appears to be redundant. Perforce, it comes to say that he left and not another. This raises a question: Did not also camels leave with him? Perforce, [it speaks specifically of him] because when Yaakov left, the glory and brilliance departed—which would not be so if someone else had left.

It also possible that the Torah meant to convey to us that Esau's anger חרונו, departed from him the moment Jacob departed from Beer Sheva. This is expressed by the words: וילך חרנה.

Jakob zieht hinaus, um ein jüdisches Haus zu gründen, und nimmt dazu nichts als sich, als das mit hinaus, was in seiner eigenen Persönlich- keit liegt — das ist das Faktum, mit welchem hier eingeleitet wird; denn alles, was fortan folgt, bewegt sich nur um die Gründung des Hauses. War ja Jakob der erste, der es aussprach, wie Gott vor allem im Hause zu suchen sei, der erste, der den großen Gedanken dachte: ׳בית אלקים ,בית א, Gottes Haus, der eben nichts anders sagt, als: dass der Kreis, wo die Menschenseelen keimen und blühen, wohin der Mensch das trägt, was er erwirbt und es in Menschenleben bauende Tätigkeit umsetzt, die größte und nächste Stätte der Gottes- offenbarung sei.

וילך חרנה, “he walked in the direction of Charan.” According to our sages in Sanhedrin 95 this means that he arrived in Charan still on the same day. He had travelled a number of days from Kiryat Arba. According to our sages it was17 days’ walk from Kiryat Arvaba to Charan, a distance which Yaakov covered in 12 hours.

While a righteous person is in the city, he is its glory... I.e., when a tzaddik is in the city, the men and people are also righteous because they are ashamed of him [and do not sin]. Also, because he reproves them.

According to the tradition quoted by our sages that Esau sent his son Eliphaz after Jacob, the words וילך חרנה may allude to Eliphaz hurrying after Jacob full of anger, i.e. בחרון. Perhaps the next verse in which Jacob is described as encountering a certain site, ויפגע במקום, is a hint that Jacob felt endangered and took refuge in prayer.

Was schon Noa bei der neuen Grundlegung der Menschengeschichte prophetisch geschaut, dass, wenn es der japhetischen Kultur gegeben ist, die Menschen für das Schöne zu gewinnen, und dadurch veredelnd auf sie einzuwirken, es Sem vorbehalten sei, "Hütten zu bauen, in welchen Gott wohnt", das trat zuerst durch Jakob in die Verwirklichung ein. Wenn jüdische Weisen den großen, die ganze Weltanschauung umwandelnden Satz gesprochen: עיקר שכינה בתחתונים, die Haupt- und ursprüngliche Stätte der Schechina ist auf Erden; oder: wenn Menschen gottselig ihre Augen himmelwärts drehen und meinen, Gott oben suchen zu müssen, lachen die Engel sie aus und nennen sie Distelköpfe ( 18 ס"ח); oder: wer im Freien wandert und lernt, und sich von dem Lernenl 1 seiner Lehre unterbricht und spricht, wie schön ist dieser Baum, wie schön ist dieses Feld — wer also in der Anschauung der gotttreuen Entwickelung eines Menschenlebens nicht eine alles andere verdunkelnd überstrahlende Herrlichkeit findet, so dass ihm dabei noch ein Auge für die Herrlichkeit der Natur bleibt — der hat fast sein Leben verwirkt (Aboth III 9), solche und ähnliche Aussprüche verdanken wir dem Geiste Jakobs. Unter dem Einfluss der japhetischen Kultur flüchtet man sich aus dem "prosaischen", "gewöhnlichen" Leben in die "Poesie" der schönen Natur. Jakobs Erben finden Gott und alles Herrliche am ersten und nächsten im Hause. Das ist der Gegensatz jüdischen und nichtjüdischen Wesens.

חרנה, Charan and Padan Arom are both the same town. They were known by two different names; one name is used in connection with its being the town where Lavan resided, (Genesis 27,43) and immediately afterwards the Torah called it Padan Arom (28,2).

Once he has left there, its glory has departed... I.e., the people of the city commit sins. We need not object that Yitzchok was still there, as Bereishis Rabboh already answered: The righteousness of one tzaddik is not like the righteousness of two tzaddikim.

So ging also Jakob von Beer Scheba nach Charan. באר שבע, das für Jizchak so bedeutungsvoll war, wo er inne geworden, wie mit ihm, wenngleich nicht עבדות, so doch schon גרות begonnen, wo er aber, als er sich freiwillig isoliert hatte, nicht bloß Ruhe, sondern auch Anerkennung gefunden, dieses Beer Scheba der Ruhe und der Ehren gab Jakob freiwillig auf und wanderte nach Charan.

“And she left the place,” which is written concerning Naomi and Ruth. Question: Why does Rashi bring a proof from Ruth, when in Ruth, he brings a proof from here? The answer is: Without the proof from Ruth, we might think that the two leavings written here are (1) the departure of his person and (2) the departure of his money, flock and cattle which left with him. Thus, Rashi brings proof from Ruth that the departure of a tzaddik makes an impression—as there, it cannot refer to the departure of their property. For it is written there that she said (Ruth 1:21), “Hashem has brought me back empty,” indicating clearly that she had no property. And in Ruth, Rashi brings a proof from here, because we might think that it makes an impression only if no tzaddik remains behind, as was the case there. But where there are tzaddikim, how do we know that the departure of a tzaddik makes an impression? Thus Rashi proves it from here, as Yitzchok and Rivkah remained, yet Yaakov’s departure still made an impression. (See Tzeidah L’Derech, who offers a lengthy explanation.)

He left in order to go to Charan. Rashi is answering the question: וילך חרנה seems to imply that he came to Charan. But how can this be? It is written after the verse, “He reached the place [of Mt. Moriah],” which occurred before he came to Charan! It is difficult to say that וילך means what it sounds like, that he got to Charan, and then Scripture goes back to explain the place he reached while traveling—this is not the norm of Scripture. Thus Rashi explains: “He left in order to go to Charan” [but he did not get there yet].