창세기 32:39의 주석

ויברך אתהם. Our sages have already told us not to belittle the value of a blessing pronounced by a layman, a person of low social standing. (Megillah 15) The reason why the Torah tells us of Lavan’s blessing to his daughters is to remind us that when a father blesses his sons he does so wholeheartedly, with his material and spiritual faculties. We know that Yitzchok blessed with all his soul from his own words (27,4) When the one bestowing the blessing himself reflects the image of G’d he had been created in, then such a blessing is likely to be correspondingly more effective.

Lavan … returned to his place. He returned to the lowly status that he endured before Yaakov arrived. This foreshadowed the ascendance and subsequent decline of all the nations that hosted and then expelled the Jewish people.

וישכם, the word has been explained elsewhere.

וינשק לבניו, ”he kissed his grandchildren.” His daughters children.

Genesis 32:4: "Yaakov sent angels"-- Rashi explains that the word "angel" [in context] means just that: an angel [whereas other commentaries could interpret the word as "messenger"). It's known from the Zohar that every mitzvah creates an angel. The main antagonism to the angelic minister of Eisav is saying the prayer of Shema. This is the meaning of the verse: "the house of Yaakov is fire, the house of Eisav is straw" (Ovadia 1:18) -- "straw" is an acronym is for "kriat shema" [the prayer of Shema]. The Shema directly opposes Eisav. As it says Megaleh Amukot, "so shall say you to my master Esiav" -- "so" refers to recital of Shema. The word "mamish" [used by Rashi in his commentary] stands for "mekabalet malchus shamayim" (accepting the yoke of heaven), referring to the angels emerging from the intent of our Shema. This is the main antagonism to subjugate the angelic minister of Eisav. Eisav also includes the seed of Amalek, and the Torah says that Hashem's name is not complete until Amalek is eradicated. On that day, when the saviors go to the mountain of Zion to judge the mountain of Eisav, dominion will belong to G-d, and on that day Hashem will be one and His Name will be one.

ויפגעו בו מלאכי אלהים AND THE ANGELS OF GOD MET HIM — The angels who minister in the Land of Israel came to meet him in order to escort him into the Holy Land (see Genesis Rabbah 74:17).

AND THE ANGELS OF G-D MET HIM. Rashi comments: “The angels who minister in the Land of Israel came to meet him. And he called the name of that place Mahanaim: the plural form implies two camps, one consisting of the angels ministering outside of the Land of Israel who had accompanied him thus far, the other consisting of those ministering in the Land of Israel who had come forth to meet him.”
But I wonder at this, for Jacob had not yet reached the Land of Israel and was still distant from there for he sent messengers to Esau from afar. And then it says there, And he passed over the ford of the Jabbok,²⁵⁶Further, 32:23. which is the river Jabbok which is the border of the children of Ammon.²⁵⁷Deuteronomy 3:16. This is to the southeast of the Land of Israel, and he still had to pass the boundary of the children of Ammon and Moab, and then the land of Edom, and his first entry into the Land was at Shechem, as it is said, And Jacob came in peace to the city of Shechem, which is in the land of Canaan.²⁵⁸Further 33:18. This poses a difficulty to Rashi’s interpretation of “Mahanaim.” Instead, we must say this vision came to Jacob as he arrived in enemy territory in order to inform him that “they that are with him are more than they that are with them.”²⁵⁹See II Kings 6:16. And the name of the place was called “Mahanaim” in the plural, for such is the way of Scripture with names.²⁶⁰For a single event or person, a plural name is given, as for example, “Mitzraim”. It may be that “Mahanaim” refers to His camp and the camp of the higher beings,²⁶¹In that case the plural in the word Mahanaim is naturally justified. that is to say that His camp on earth is as the camp of the angels, all of them being camps of G-d, blessing Him and confessing His Unity, may His name be blessed forever.
Vayishlach
This section was written in order to inform us that the Holy One, blessed be He, delivered His servant, and He redeemed him from the hand of him that is stronger than he,¹Jeremiah 31:11. and he sent an angel²Numbers 20:16. and saved him, and in order to further teach us that Jacob did not place his trust in his righteousness and that he strove for delivery with all his might. There is yet in this section a hint for future generations, for everything that happened to our father with his brother Esau will constantly occur to us with Esau’s children, and it is proper for us to adhere to the way of the righteous³See Job 17:9. by preparing ourselves in the three things for which he prepared himself: for prayer, for giving him a present, and for rescue by methods of warfare, to flee and to be saved. Our Rabbis have already derived this hint from this section, as I shall mention.

ויפגעו בו, in order to protect him, as in 28,15 “and here I will be with you.”

ויפגעו בו מלאכי אלוקים, G'd's angels met him. We need to understand the meaning of "they met him." We also need to examine what new insight Jacob contributed by calling the angels' encampment "a camp of G'd." What exactly is the meaning of the word מחנים? Bereshit Rabbah 74,17 offers a variety of explanations all of which are homiletical.

ויעקב...מלאכי אלוקים. G’d sent His angels to him to keep him safe while he was journeying.

ויפגעו בו מלכי אלוקים, ”angels of G’d met him.” Rashi explains that these were the angels assigned to protect him while he was in the land of Israel. These angels now came to welcome Yaakov, whereas the ones who had accompanied him thus far still had not taken their leave.

ויפגעו בו מלאכי אלוקים, “and angels of G’d met him.” These were the same angels who had been mentioned at the beginning of the portion who had been ascending and descending the ladder Yaakov had seen in his dream. This is what the Torah added כאשר ראם, “as he had seen them.” In other words, he was already familiar with these angels. We have a similar construction in Ezekiel 10,20 היא החיה אשר ראיתי , “this is the angel whom I had seen, etc.” Actually, the Torah could have written ויפגע במלאכי אלוקים, “he encountered angels of G’d.” The reason the Torah wrote that the angels met Yaakov instead of vice versa is a compliment to Yaakov. The purpose of the encounter was in order to protect Yaakov. It is similar to Psalms 91,15 כי מלאכיו יצוה לך לשמרך בכל דרכיך, “for He will command His angels to guard you (the righteous) on all your paths.”
There is a discussion in the Midrash Bereshit Rabbah 78,2 as to who is greater, the guardian or the person whom he guards? The Midrash concludes that the person being guarded is greater than the guardian. The Midrash came to this conclusion based on the verse (Psalms 91,12) “to guard you on all your paths to carry you in their hands lest you hurt your foot on a stone.” The Midrash also asks: “who is greater the carrier or the one being carried?” It concludes that the person being carried is the more important of the two. Finally, the Midrash asks: “who is more important the one being met or the one who goes out to meet someone?” The Midrash concludes that the person being met is the more important of the two. We find some support for this in connection with the prophet Elisha. We read in Kings II 6,15: “when the attendant of the man of G’d rose early and went outside, he saw a force, with horses and chariots, surrounding the town and he said to his master: ‘what shall we do?’” The verse goes on to say: “do not be afraid there are more on our side than on theirs.” A little later the verse continues: “G’d opened the eyes of the servant and he saw and here the mountain all around Elisha was covered with horses and chariots of fire.” [The paragraph started with the one who meets, only to conclude with the ones being met, the latter becoming the victors in the ensuing battle. Ed.]

Als Jakob vor zwanzig Jahren aus väterlichem Hause ausgezogen war ויפגע במקום, da "traf er das Göttliche": Jetzt bei seiner Heimkehr, "trafen ihn die Engel". Vor zwanzig Jahren war es für ihn ein "Ereignis", dass ihm das Göttliche erschien und es ihm klar wurde, dass die Schechina wieder also einkehren wolle auf Erden, dass, während die Engel Gott im Himmel suchen, seine Herrlichkeit bei den Menschen auf Erden weile, dass an dieser Wiederkehr der Gottesherrlichkeit auf Erden er und sein künftiges Volk in allen seinen Gliedern arbeiten solle — jetzt, in dem Momente, wo er zuerst, losgelöst von allen anderen Verhältnissen, als selbständige freie Familie aufatmete, war seine Erscheinung ein Ereignis für die Engel, war es ein Ereignis für die Engel, dass sie zum erstenmale eine solche Familie auf Erden trafen. Während er still, und der Göttlichkeit seiner und seines Hauses Bedeutung unbewusst, seines Weges zog, war er für die Engel Gottes ein Ereignis.

מחנים, “i.e. two camps.” Nachmanides is astounded at this interpretation by Rashi of these two verses, in view of the fact that Yaakov had not yet crossed into the territory of ארץ ישראל, and in fact was a long way distant from the border even when he sent messengers to Esau in verse 4. We were told shortly before that he had crossed the fording of the river Yabbok, a river which flows from East to West and ends up as a tributary to the river Jordan, the dividing line between the land of Canaan and the territories of Ammon and Moav. Even the land of Edom still lay between him and the Holy Land. Yaakov’s entry into the Holy Land occurred only when he arrived at Shechem physically and spiritually whole, as the Torah testifies in verse 18. We must therefore view what the Torah described here as a vision granted to Yaakov, a vision which was to reassure him that he had more friendly forces on his side than had Esau, his brother, whom he still had to confront. He called the location מחניים, to symbolize the occasion. There is nothing unusual in that.

The plain meaning of the verse is that G'd sent Jacob angels in the guise of human beings to gain the confidence of Esau and to find out his intentions concerning him, as we observe in the course of what develops. How did Jacob know that he had been met by angels? The arrival of these people (angels) was not in the manner of ordinary human beings who are seen approaching before they arrive and set up camp. These angels materialised suddenly as if out of nowhere, as if they had sprouted up in front of him. The word ויפגעו alludes to the first sudden and unexpected encounter Jacob had with these beings. This is why he described their encampment as a camp of G'd the moment he set eyes on them. He called the place where this occurred מחנים, i.e. two camps. One camp consisted of Jacob's own people who had prepared with him for war against Esau, the second one was the camp of these angels who had assumed the appearance of human beings. They usually do so whenever they are despatched by G'd to assist someone who is dear to G'd, such as Jacob the choicest of the patriarchs.

מחנים means two camps — the one consisting of the angels ministering outside the Holy Land who had come with him thus far, the other, of those ministering in the Land of Israel who had come to meet him (Midrash Tanchuma, Vayishlach 3).

מחנה אלוקים זה. Now that the angels have seen fit to join me there can be no doubt that mine is a godly camp. Just as Yaakov had called the place where he had had the dream of the ladder Bet El, so he now referred to his camp as machaneh elokim. In either instance the reason was that he had been found worthy of a divine revelation.

ויאמר...כאשר ראם, Yaakov’s reaction to these angels (inhuman garb) was similar to that of Avraham, his grandfather, in Genesis 18,20, when the latter is described as running to welcome them as soon as he saw them.

Two camps—from outside Eretz Yisrael... Question: Rashi explained on, “Ascending and descending” (v. 28:12), that the two [groups of angels] were not together. Rather, one ascended and only then the other descended. [Why were both groups together here?] The answer is: Rashi explains at the beginning of Parshas Vayishlach that Yaakov sent actual angels [to Eisov]. Accordingly, it means as follows: Here too, the angels of outside Eretz Yisrael wanted to ascend before the angels of Eretz Yisrael would descend. But Yaakov forced them to stay because he wanted to send them to Eisov. If so, this implies that [the messengers sent by Yaakov] were actual angels.

מחנה heisst durchaus nicht eine bleibende Niederlassung, sondern nur ein zeitweiliger Ruhepunkt eines einem Ziele zuwandernden Vereins von Wesen. Ein solches מחנה war Jakob mit seinen Frauen, Kindern, Knechten, Mägden, Herden: sie waren auf der Wanderung, eine Heimat zu suchen, von welcher ihnen Gott verheißen hatte, dort bei ihnen sein zu wollen; sie waren also ein מחנה, das Gott in der Heimat suchte. Und ein solches מחנה waren die Engel, die Menschen suchen, irdische, menschliche Kreise für den Einzug Gottes auf Erden. Beide מחנות begegnen sich und er nannte den Ort: Machnajim, מחנה ישראל und ׳חנה — .מחנה אלקי wandernder Ruhepunkt; aus der Lautverwandtschaft von אנה fügen; etwas irgendwo hin versetzen, אני, das Ich in der Bewegung (während אנכי, von אנך verwandt mit ענג das Ich in der Ruhe], הנה das sich, oder anderes, bereitstellende Ich. חנה, das in Bewegung zu einem Ziele begriffene Ruhen. (Vergl. S. 139).

מחנים, “camps;” a reference to two camps of angels meeting at this place; the ones who had protected him thus far, and the ones assigned to so while he would be in the Holy Land.

מחנים, two camps; the camp of G’d (angels) and his own. The grammatical formulation with the plural ending following the vowel patach, the stress is on the penultimate syllable as this indicated the number 2. Parallel examples are paamayim, shevuayim, shenatayim, etc. .[the kametz here substitutes for the patach as it is the end of the sentence. Ed.]

מחנים, two camps. One camp consisted of angels, the other of Yaakov and his entourage. This is why he named this location מחנים. The name stuck, as we find it mentioned at that location in Samuel II 2,8. We also find again in Joshua 13,30. The local people agreed to the name change by Yaakov. The same applies to all locations of which the Torah tells us that one of the patriarchs had name, as we pointed out in or commentary at the beginning of this portion. (28,18)

וישלח יעקב מלאכים AND JACOB SENT MESSENGERS (Heb. מלאכים angels) — actually angels (Genesis Rabbah 75:4).

TO ESAU HIS BROTHER UNTO THE LAND SE’IR. Since the southern part of the Land of Israel adjoins Edom, and Jacob’s father dwelt in the land of the South,⁴Above, 24:62. he had to pass through Edom or near there. Therefore, he feared lest Esau hear of it, and he took the initiative by sending messengers to him in his country. But the Sages have already taken him to task for this, saying in Bereshith Rabbah:⁵75:2. “Like one that taketh a dog by the ears is he that passeth by, and meddleth with a strife not his own.⁶Proverbs 26:17. The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Jacob, ‘Esau was going his way, and you send him messengers, and say to him, Thus saith thy servant Jacob!“⁷Verse 5 here.
In my opinion this too hints at the fact that we instigated our falling into the hand of Edom [Rome] for the Hasmonean kings during the period of the Second Temple entered into a covenant with the Romans,⁸In Maccabees, I, 8, it is related how Judah Maccabee sent a delegation to Rome to establish a political alliance with the Romans. and some of them even went to Rome to seek an alliance. This was the cause of their falling into the hands of the Romans. This is mentioned in the words of our Rabbis,⁹Abodah Zarah 8b. and is well publicized in books.¹⁰Ramban is undoubtedly referring to the history book of Josippon, or Joseph ben Gorion, a medieval work regarded as the Hebrew version of Josephus Flavius. It was a popular work with the people of the Middle Ages. See also Ramban on Leviticus 26:16.

וישלח יעקב מלאכים, in order to find out Esau’s state of mind concerning him.

וישלח, He sent, etc. Why did the Torah say: לפניו, ahead of him, a word which appears to be superfluous? The word אחיו also needs justification. Who did not know that Esau was Jacob's brother? Even the words ארצה שעיר שדה אדום, "to the land of Se-ir the field of Edom," need an explanation. What difference would it make to the angels where Esau was located? Furthermore, why did the Torah use the expression ארצה instead of לארץ? Although Yevamot 13 states that wherever the letter ל is required at the beginning it can be substituted for by the letter ה at the end, this does not explain when the Torah chooses one method rather than another.

וישלח יעקב מלאכים, even though G’d had assured him of His support twice, he was still afraid of his brother. The reason was that at the time Yaakov had left home Esau had been very angry at him. He was now afraid that due to some sin he might have committed and that he had remained unaware of, he might forfeit G’d’s support. We elaborated on this concept already. In order to find out how Esau felt about him now, he sent some of his mean as emissaries. They were supposed to soften him up if that was necessary.

וישלח יעקב מלאכים לפניו, “Yaakov sent messengers ahead of him.” Their assignment was to walk in front of him. Alternatively, their assignment was to investigate the “face” of Esau, i.e. his attitude toward Yaakov at this time. Although G’d had given Yaakov all kinds of assurances, (some time earlier) he did not rely on his righteousness alone to save him from Esau, but took every prudent precaution to minimize the risk to his family and to himself. Yaakov’s conduct is to serve as a model for his children and future descendants to teach them how to deal with the descendants of Esau. Just as he prayed, offered bribes, and was prepared for battle, so his descendants should employ these three means of insuring their survival also.

מעין נרפש ומקור משחת צדיק מט לפני רשע אכול דבש הרבות לא-טוב וחקר כבודם כבוד “A righteous man who falters in front of the wicked, is like a murky well and a polluted fountain. It is no good to eat too much honey, nor is it honorable to seek personal glory.”(Proverbs 25, 26-27)

Actual angels. Otherwise, why does it need to say לפניו? The verse is saying that Yaakov sent the messengers [i.e., the angels] who were לפניו. In other words, he sent the ones mentioned before: “And the angels of Elohim met him” (v. 2). (Re’m) Much more has been said regarding this. See Gur Aryeh, R. Noson and Nachalas Yaakov.

וישלח יעקב מלאכים, “Yaakov sent out messengers;” the meaning of the word: malachim here is, as understood by both translators into Aramaic, izgedin, runners, messengers; [human beings. Ed.]

ארצה שעיר means TO THE LAND OF SEIR — A word that requires a ל as prefix has a ה placed as a suffix (Yevamot 13b).

ארצה שעיר שדה אדום, to the region of Seir where he lived. At that time he had not yet conquered the whole Chori, the inhabitants of that land. (compare 36,8)

ארצה שעיר, he had heard that Esau was there at the time although he had not settled there with his family. At this time he still lived in the land of Canaan. We know from 36,6-9 that Esau migrated to the land of Seir only at that time, after the meeting with Yaakov.

ארצה שעיר, שדה אדום, “the land Seir, the field of Edom.” Anyone traveling from Charan to the land of Israel travels through the land of Seir. Even though Esau spent most of his time in the land of Canaan, as is clear from Genesis 36,6: “Esau took his wives and went to “a (another) land,” on account of his brother Yaakov,” Yaakov had reason to believe that he would encounter him near his wives, who had come from the land of Seir. Our sages have criticized Yaakov, comparing his conduct to the proverbial “he who grabs the ears of a dog must not be surprised if he gets bitten.” Yaakov’s sending gifts ahead to Esau alerted him to the fact that he was about to approach him. Yaakov’s mistake was repeated during the latter days of the second Jewish commonwealth, when the Romans were invited by a Jewish king Aristobul, descendant of the Maccabees, to conclude an alliance with him. This was the beginning of the collapse of the Jewish commonwealth and of the second Temple, followed by total loss of Jewish independence, such as it had been.

The verse wants to justify the expression "he sent angels." Why did Jacob employ heavenly beings without a pressing need? He could have accomplished the same thing by employing human messengers! The Torah says לפניו, to tell us that since Jacob had already met with these angels and they had obviously come to help him, he was permitted to use them as messengers for a task that human messengers might prove inadequate for. Jacob reasoned that seeing that these messengers would meet an important man such as Esau, he might not consider messengers of a lower order as appropriate to his stature (compare Bereshit Rabbah 75). Esau might not have responded to any other messengers at all. It is also possible that Esau would immediately pounce on Jacob's human messengers as the eagle does when he swoops out of the skies, thus not giving him any warning before attacking him. For all these reasons Jacob was justified in employing celestial beings to act as his messengers. Perhaps he also hoped that when Esau became aware that he, Jacob, had celestial beings do his bidding he would desist from his planned attack on Jacob altogether. The Midrash we quoted above refers to those angels as being garbed in "fiery garments, riding horses of fire, etc."

To Eisav his brother in the land of Edom: Since southern Israel is near Edom, and his father (Yitzchok) was living in the south, he (Yaakov) would need to pass through Edom, or close by. Therefore he was afraid the Eisav would hear (that Yaakov was there), and he preemptively sent messengers to his land. Our Rabbis take him to task for this, as it says in (the medrash) Bereishis Rabba, "'He who holds the ears of a dog...' Hashem said to him (Yaakov), 'He was going on his way, and you sent messengers to him saying, so said your servant Yaakov?'" In my opinion, this also hints for us, that we began our downfall into the hands of Edom (when) the kings of the Second Temple Era entered into a covenant with Rome, and some even went to Rome. This was the reason for their downfall.

ארצה שעיר, “towards the land of Seir.” This land had originally belonged to “Seir,” but when Esau married Oholivamah, daughter of Ana, he inherited this land courtesy of his wife whose maternal links had been Ana, a daughter of Tzivon as stated in Genesis 36,2. Esau had moved there from the land of Canaan to spend more time with his wives to whom he felt greatly attached. Eventually this land was named after him, i.e. “field of Edom.” This term reminds everyone of Esau’s primary vocation as hunter in the field.

שדה אדום, a synonym for “the land of Edom.” We have the same synonym also being used for the land of Moav in Ruth 1,1 when Elimelech left the land of Israel to settle in שדה מואב, meaning in ארץ מואב.

The reason the Torah mentions the word "his brother," is to emphasize that Jacob despatched the messengers in a spirit of brotherliness and that he accorded Esau the honour due to an older brother. He was afraid of engaging Esau in warfare in case the latter should invoke his father's merits.

Another approach is also possible. The Torah emphasizes: אל עשו in order to tell us that on the one hand Esau hated him; on the other hand, the Torah wrote אל אחיו, to tell us that he did not hate him, that he was his brother. The messengers should be guided in their approach to Esau according to the frame of mind they would find him in. Since only celestial beings could divine Esau's frame of mind with any certainty, Jacob had to send celestial messengers to accomplish this task.

Still another possibility is that Jacob's strategy was to send messengers to Esau before Esau had a chance to hear about his approach from another source. This is in line with the various Midrashim in which Jacob is criticised severely for not letting sleeping dogs lie, for demeaning himself by repeating so many times "your servant Jacob," etc. He chose to send angels who would not have to exert themselves by excessive travel. To the angels the whole universe appeared no greater than four cubits do to us mortal human beings. When the Torah reports that Jacob sent messengers ahead of him to Esau, the word לפניו, before him, is an allusion that the angels were still literally in his presence although they performed their mission to Esau who was quite a distance away. The reason that the Torah wrote ארצה שעיר instead of לארץ שעיר, is to emphasize that the angels did not actually have to go anywhere. All they had to do was to face in a different direction. The reason that the field is called "Edom" is that they would arrive at Esau's, i.e. the field of Edom, before the latter had a chance to even to get under way towards Jacob.

This verse may also be understood as alluding to three different historical periods during each of which Esau's conduct would be different. One period finds Jacob and Esau in a brotherly relationship. This is alluded to by the words: "to Esau his brother." This period would extend until the destruction of the Holy Temple. Even though there were times prior to that when the Edomites were subjugated by Israel, such periods were relatively brief. During a different period in history, after the destruction of the Holy Temple until the end of the present era (before the advent of the Messiah), Esau would occupy a lofty position on earth and Israel would not even be considered by it as of any importance at all. This is the period which is alluded to here by the words ארצה שעיר, with the vowel patach under the letter א. This vowel underlines the superior position of Esau. The third period is the one we are hoping for when Edom will become an inheritance (for the Jewish people). This period is alluded to by the words שדה אדום, i.e. that Edom will be ploughed over as predicted by the prophet.

The sages of the Midrash in Bereshit Rabbah 75,2 take a different view. They describe Yaakov as taking hold of the ears of a dog by getting involved in a struggle which was not his. The last we had heard of Esau was that he pursued his own interests and married another wife to mollify his parents (28,9). According to Bereshit Rabbah 75,5 Yaakov acted very precipitously by sending messengers to Esau and reminding him of his existence, almost provoking him into a confrontation. This is how they interpret the verse in Proverbs we started out with, i.e. that Yaakov unnecessarily muddied the waters. They ascribe an overly obsequious letter from Rabbi Yehudah Hanassi to the governor of Palestine Antoninus as reflecting this lack of backbone displayed here by his ancestor Yaakov. Antoninus reputedly replied to this letter by questioning Rabbi Yehudah Hanassi: “are you then my servant? I wish I would become your servant in the hereafter.” Rabbi Yehudah replied “I am not greater than my ancestor Yaakov; and you are not smaller than your ancestor Esau.” After all, my ancestor Yaakov sent a message to your ancestor Esau in which he addressed him as ‘your servant Yaakov.’” According to an opinion in that Midrash, we learn from here that Royalty must be addressed deferentially.

גרתי I HAVE SOJOURNED — I have become neither a prince nor other person of importance but merely a sojourner. It is not worth your while to hate me on account of the blessing of your father who blessed me (27:29) “Be master over thy brethren”, for it has not been fulfilled in me (Tanchuma Yashan 1:8:5). Another explanation: the word גרתי has the numerical value of 613 - תרי״ג - it is as much as to say, “Though I have sojourned with Laban, the wicked, I have observed the תרי״ג מצות, the 613 Divine Commandments, and I have learned naught of his evil ways.

THUS SHALL YE SAY UNTO MY LORD ESAU: THUS SAITH THY SERVANT JACOB. He commanded them that they should say “to my lord Esau we belong,” or “we were sent to him,”¹¹The intent of Ramban is to state that Jacob, speaking to his servants, did not refer to Esau as “my lord Esau,” but rather he commanded them to use the expression in Esau’s presence. and to say to him, Thus saith thy servant Jacob: I have sojourned with Laban. A similar example in this section is the verse: When Esau my brother meeteth thee, and asketh thee, saying, Whose art thou?¹²Further, Verse 18. The verse concludes that they are to tell him that it is a gift “to my lord Esau.” Again Jacob is telling them what to say. It may be that in their presence Jacob called Esau “my lord Esau” in order to caution them not to mention Esau in any other but a respectful way even when not in his presence, inasmuch as their lord calls him “my lord.”
Know that this respect which Jacob showed for his brother by fearfully saying “my lord” and “thy servant” was due to it being the custom of the younger brother to give recognition and respect to the firstborn as if he were his father, just as the Torah also hints to us on this matter:¹³Kethuboth 103a. Commenting on the letter vav in the expression, ve’eth imecha (“honor thy father ‘and’ thy mother“), our Rabbis said: “This includes your oldest brother!” “This includes your oldest brother.” Now Jacob had taken his birthright and his blessing, for which Esau hated him, and now he is acting towards Esau as if the effect of that sale was nil as far as he was concerned, and he is conducting himself towards him as to a firstborn and father in order to remove the hatred from his heart.

ויצו אותם לאמור, he commanded them and said to them: כה תאמרון, the messengers were oblivious of what it was that troubled Yaakov.

ואחר עד עתה. This is why I did not come to pay my respects to you until now.

ויצו אותם לאמור, He instructed them to say, etc. We must first understand the reason for the word לאמור, seeing that Jacob had already said to these messengers: "thus you shall say." Perhaps Jacob meant that they should tell Esau that they had been instructed to say precisely the words they were about to say. Otherwise, Esau might form the impression that the messengers related to him with deference and called him "his master," being aware that he was the senior brother and that it was only common courtesy to address him in that fashion, but that Jacob himself had never uttered the word אדון in relation to his brother. Jacob wanted to be sure that Esau realised that he himself had addressed him as אדון, master. He did so in order to remove any vestige of hatred and jealousy Esau might still, harbour against him in his heart. Were this not the true reason it is difficult to understand why Jacob should refer to Esau as his master even while Esau was not present. We must conclude therefore that Jacob used this term of flattery in order to avoid a possible war between himself and Esau.

ויצו אותם לאמור. He commanded them to use precisely the words Yaakov instructed them to use in the following verse, i.e. כה תאמרו “you shall say precisely these words!” This is clear from the fact that Yaakov charged his messengers to say to Esau: “thus say to my lord Esau. He should have said only: “thus say to Esau when you meet him, etc.”

כה תאמרו לאדוני לעשו, “thus you shall say to my lord, to Esau.” This does not mean that Yaakov called his brother: “my lord,” as this would not make sense unless you are in the presence of the person so described. It means that he commanded his servants to address Esau with the title “my lord, thus has said your servant Yaakov.” when they would meet him. It is also possible that that Yaakov did refer to Esau as “my lord” even when he was not in his presence in order to warn his messengers to address him with the proper degree of deference even when they were not in his presence. They would do so once they noticed that even their own master did so even in his absence. All of this was not an unusually obsequious behaviour by Yaakov, but it was customary for the younger brother to refer to his older brother in such terms, as a sign of respect. The reason the Torah reports all this, is to tell us that although Yaakov had purchased the birthright from his brother, he still considered him the senior brother, biologically speaking. He hoped to persuade Esau by this stratagem that the “birthright” in terms of personal honour, was of no concern to him whatsoever.

כה תאמרון לאדוני לעשו, this what you are to say to my lord Esau, etc.” This does not mean that Yaakov addressed Esau as “my lord” even in his absence. It means that Yaakov instructed messengers that if they would be asked they were to say that what they were guarding and guiding was destined as “a gift for my lord Esau”, just as the Torah describes in verse 19.

I have not become an officer or anyone of importance... Otherwise it should simply say, “With Lavan I was delayed.”

(5-6) Wir haben oben gesehen, aus welchen Gründen Jakob arm aus dem väterlichen Hause fortgegangen war, und wenn er jetzt reich zurückkehrt und zumal Esau auch nicht mehr zu Hause ist, lag das Bedürfnis sehr nahe, dem Esau sagen zu lassen, dass, und wie er alles erworben. In drei Worten sagt er Esau das ganze Bittere und Prüfungsvolle seiner Vergangenheit. Fremd und unberechtigt sein ist überall hart, bei einem Laban sein unter allen Umständen eine harte Prüfung, עם לבן גרתי, als Fremder bei einem Laban seine Tage zuzubringen, vergegenwärtigt das bitterste Los. ואחר עד עתה und nicht aus Wohlbehagen, sondern gezwungen war ich, so lange zu bleiben. Ich wäre gerne früher gekommen. Allein bis vor sechs Jahren hatte ich nur Frauen und Kinder, aber noch nicht den ersten eigenen Groschen erworben. Auf diesem harten, wenig beneidenswerten Wege zwanzigjähriger Mühen bin ich zu dem gelangt. was ich habe. Ich habe es für Recht gehalten, dich dies wissen zu lassen, damit — dieses lange Leid Sühne für Vergangenes, und mein jetziger Wohlstand selbst mein Fürsprecher bei dir sein möge.

וישלח יעקב...כה תאמרון לאדוני לעשו, Yaakov sent......thus you shall say to my lord, to Esau: Yaakov was punished for referring to Esau as “my lord.” G–d said to him: “I have said to your mother that the older of her sons will serve the younger” (Genesis 25,23) and you have taken it upon yourself to address your elder brother as “my lord” eight times? This is why in this portion we will read that eight kings ruled over the kingdom of Esau (Edom) before the first king ruled over Israel. This is why this very point has been recorded in this portion at the end of this portion (Genesis 36,31-43)

לאדני, לעשו, “to my lord, to Esau.” We find Yaakov addressing Esau as “my lord,” no fewer than eight times in this portion. This may be the reason why eight kings ruled in the land of Edom before the first king ruled in the land of Israel.

עם לבן גרתי, as you are aware of, I was there at the command of my father and mother. He said this so Esau would not think that he had run away on his account.

עם לבן גרתי, ”I have sojourned with Lavan, etc.” I have stayed all this time even though he kept treating me like a stranger (and not like a son-in-law).

עם לבן גרתי, “I have stayed with Lavan, etc.” He was anxious to at one and the same time describe the fact that he had not stayed away from home for 22 years out of fear of his brother’s vengeance, but had remained with Lavan as he had had to work very hard. We find the words גרתי משך in that context in Psalms 120,5 where the psalmist bemoans the fact that he had to dwell for a long time with the Meshech and the clans of Kedar. Secondly, he informed Esau that he had become very wealthy though this was of secondary importance to him. G’d had granted him wealth in return for his hard labour. His wealth was the result of the sweat of his brow, he had not inherited it from his fathers. Had his wealth derived from an inheritance, Esau would have been entitled to his share of the inheritance. Thirdly, he wanted Esau to know that he came in peace and was interested in a brotherly relationship with Esau. He was sending the messengers and the gifts to prepare the way for a friendly reunion.

Another explanation: The gematria of גרתי... I have kept תרי"ג commandments... Thus, you cannot defeat me. When your father blessed you that “you shall live by your sword” (27:40), that is only “When you have cause to be grieved” (ibid). [I.e., “When the Israelites will transgress the Torah.”] But I kept the whole Torah! Maharshal explains that Rashi is answering the question: Why did Yaakov say, “I have not become an officer...”? For this actually would allow the wicked Eisov to claim, “If the blessings were not fulfilled for you, you surely did not keep the mitzvos! Thus I should fulfill regarding you, ‘When you have cause to be grieved, you will throw off his yoke from your neck.’” Therefore Yaakov told him, “I kept all the 613 mitzvos. Nevertheless, I have not become an officer.”

עם לבן גרתי, "I have sojourned with Laban, etc." What precisely did Jacob tell Esau in this speech that Esau had not known? Perhaps it is the custom between brothers who are on good terms with one another to exchange details about their experiences in life. Jacob may have done so in order to show that he considered himself on good terms with Esau.

כה אמר עבדך יעקב, “thus has said your obedient servant Yaakov;” Yaakov used this subservient posture in order to cool Esau’s burning anger at what he perceived that Yaakov had done to him. He hinted broadly that his father’s blessing which had portrayed Esau as subservient to him had not been fulfilled at all. In fact, he, Yaakov, was quite ready to recognise his older brother as also his senior.

ואחר, the construction is similar to ואאחר, or as in Maleachi 1,2 ואוהב את יעקב “I displayed love for Yaakov.” In both instances this is an abbreviation for ואאהב. We have similar constructions in vaochal, vaomar, in both instances the first root letter is missing.

ואחר עד עתה, “I delayed my return until now.” I was not forced by external pressures to delay my return, but I did so of my own free will.

In addition Jacob may have acted very cleverly by implying that there was no point in Esau behaving in a hostile manner, that Laban had already tried this for many years and it had not benefited him at all. The words: עם לבן גרתי were a veiled reference to the wickedness of that man. If he, Jacob, after so many years in the house of that man returned now as a wealthy man with a large family this was proof that it paid to be on good terms with a man such as he. He added: ואחר עד עתה, I delayed my return until now, meaning that all of his wealth had not been acquired in a short period of time but that his success had been ongoing. When he added that he had acquired a substantial amount of wealth, he intimated that his wealth notwithstanding he described himself as junior, as "a servant" to his older brother. His words were designed to melt even a heart of stone.

עם לבן גרתי, he explains that he had learned to adopt such a wealth of animals and servants this was due to my having stayed with my uncle many years. If he had stayed in someone else’s house during all these years he would still be penniless. An alternate explanation of the line: “I have sojourned with Lavan; ”you are aware that I stayed with Lavan as my father and mother have commanded me.” He said this in order to underline that Esau should not flatter himself that he had been a fugitive from Esau’s wrath. A third alternate exegesis of these words: Esau should not be cross that he had not come sooner to pay his respects to him; the only reason for this was that he had been indentured to Lavan under contract.

ויהי לי שור וחמור AND I HAVE OXEN AND ASSES — Our father promised me, (27:28) “[God will give thee] of the dew of heaven and of the fat places of the earth” — these are neither of the heaven nor of the earth

AND I HAVE SENT TO TELL MY LORD. I.e., “to announce that I am coming to you. That I may find favour in thy sight for I am at peace with you and seek your friendship.” These are Rashi’s words. Rashi’s intent is that the verse; I have sent to tell my lord, does not refer to the previous verse, I have sojourned with Laban, etc. but, instead, it says, “And I have sent to tell my lord that I have come to find favour in thy sight and to do whatever my lord will command.”
But it is more correct to say that it refers to the verse above: “And I have sent to tell my lord that I have wealth, belongings, and precious things, to do with them according to your desire and will.” He thus hinted to him that he would send him a present from them, or that Esau may take from him whatever he desires. And so, when Esau asked Jacob, What meanest thou by all this camp which I met? he [Jacob] said: To find favour in the sight of my lord.¹⁴Genesis 33:8.

למצוא חן בעיניך, for I have no doubt that you will be happy to see that I have become wealthy and the fact that I tell you the good news will please you.

ויהי לי שור וחמור. All the types of possessions Yaakov mentioned are not to be understood as single items but as categories of possessions. We find similar constructions in Kings II 7,10 כי אם הסוס אסור, which does not mean that a single horse had been tethered, but that the horses belonging to the army of the Aramites were tethered, the soldiers having fled. Similarly, Samuel I 14,24 where the words ואיש ישראל נגש do not mean that a single Israelite was distressed, but that a contingent of Israelites was in a depressed state of mind.

ויהי לי שור וחמור, “I acquired herds and flocks, etc.” Even though I have always been considered a יושב אהלים, a “yeshivah bachur, a “highbrow,” a misfit in the world of “men of the world,” I am not as naïve as you think, as thanks to G’d’s help I have become wealthy. This was not a boast, but Yaakov wanted to make Esau think twice before he would launch a military attack on him.

ויהי לי שור וחמור, “I acquired oxen and donkeys, sheep and servants.” Yaakov mentioned his great wealth by understating it, i.e. as if he had only acquired a single ox and a single donkey, etc., as he did not want to appear boastful. He followed the dictates of Jeremiah 9,22 “let not the wealthy boast of his wealth.” It is customary for all righteous people to belittle themselves and their belongings. The wicked, by contrast, boast of their wealth as we see from Esau who claimed יש לי רב, “I own a great deal” (33,9).

These are neither from the heavens nor from the earth. Although they are nourished from the earth, they do not actually grow from the earth. Otherwise, [if Yaakov meant as follows, a contradiction arises.] First he said, “I lived as a stranger,” to convey that the blessings were not fulfilled. Then he said ויהי לי שור וחמור, [detailing his many blessings. And he must have meant שור וחמור in plural,] as is customary to refer to many oxen as “ox.” This is obviously so, for he sent Eisov a whole camp as a gift, and would be proven a liar if he meant, “I acquired one ox [and one donkey].” According to Rashi’s other explanation above, Yaakov was saying: “Although I kept the 613 mitzvos, my father’s blessing has not been realized. I have only oxen and donkeys, not the rest of my father’s blessing, which is “from the fat of the land.” Therefore, [since my merits have not been offset by my rewards,] I do not fear you.

למצוא חן בעיניך, in order to find favour in your eyes.” Yaakov wants a reconciliation with his brother, and in order to achieve this he is willing to be completely transparent with Esau concerning all that he owns.

שור וחמור (literally, an ox and an ass) — It is the customary thing to speak of many oxen as an ox (Genesis Rabbah 75:6) — a man says to his fellow, “During the night the cock crowed”; he does not say “the cocks crowed”

ואשלחה להגיד לאדוני, “I have sent messengers to inform my lord of my impending arrival.” According to Rashi these words were meant to show Esau that Yaakov came with friendly intentions, bent on healing any breach that had existed between them. According to this explanation, the words are not a repetition of something implied previously. Nachmanides does understand the last few words as referring to what had been said before, i.e. Yaakov’s announcing that he had become wealthy since he had last seen Esau. Seeing that he had attained such wealth, he was able to treat Esau with the honour due to an older brother. i.e. this was the reason for the tokens of his esteem he had sent ahead of himself. If Esau, preferred, he could make a selection of the gifts Yaakov had sent for his approval. Some commentators see in Yaakov’s conduct confirmation of what Solomon said in Proverbs 19,7 כל אחי-רש שנאהו, “all the brothers of a poor man hate him.” Yaakov wanted Esau to know that he did not have to hate him, as he had not come as a potential burden, i.e. a poor relation who is in need of a handout. On the contrary, he was bent on finding favour in his eyes.

To announce that I am coming to you. [Rashi knows this] because if Yaakov was sending [the messengers] to tell him, “I lived as a stranger with Lavan... I acquired oxen and donkeys...” then [the next phrase,] “To find favor in your eyes,” would also refer to this. And that cannot be, for such a message is not a reason to find favor; it is merely [a reason] that Eisov should not hate him. Therefore Rashi explains, “To announce that I am coming to you” to be subservient to you — and through this will I find favor in your eyes. Maharshal writes that Rashi is answering the question: Yaakov said before, “This is what you should say.” Why does he say [again], “To tell my master”? Perforce it means, “To announce that I am coming.” In this way I will find favor, because when people send [messages] to appease someone, they do not come themselves. But I will even come myself! All this is because I am at peace with you.

ואשלחה להגיד לאדוני AND I HAVE SENT TO TELL MY LORD — to announce that I am coming to you.

למצא חן בעיניך THAT I MAY FIND FAVOUR IN THY EYES, for I am at peace with you and seek your friendship.

באנו אל אחיך אל עשו WE CAME TO THY BROTHER, TO ESAU — to him of whom you said he is my brother, but he behaves towards you as Esau, the wicked — he is still harbouring hatred (Genesis Rabbah 75:7).

AND THE MESSENGERS RETURNED TO JACOB, SAYING. These messengers had fulfilled their mission, but Scripture did not relate this for it would serve no purpose. The meaning of the expression, And moreover he cometh to meet thee, is that “even as you go to meet him, so he goes to meet you, and you will quickly encounter one another.”

באנו אל אחיך אל עשו, and you have found favour in his eyes, just as you said you would;

וגם הולך לקראתך, not only have we seen him, but he did not react with satisfaction when we told him about your wealth. But, אגם הולך לקראתך עם ארבע מאות איש, he also marches toward you with 400 men in order to attack you. The expression לקראת meaning to approach with hostile intent is repeated in Numbers 20,20 when again Edom (Esau) is threatening the Israelites.

וישבו המלאכים, The messengers returned, etc. The meaning is that they brought back a reply and said "we have come to your brother, to Esau, etc." i.e. he presented himself as your brother, whereas in actual fact he has remained Esau. "He is also coming to meet you," i.e. as a brother, but since he has taken four hundred armed men with him this is proof of his evil intentions against you.

וישובו...אל אחיך אל עשו, they mentioned the name Esau after having referred to him as אחיך, “your brother.” They meant that “Esau still holds the old grudge against you.”

וגם הולך לקראתך, “he is also on his way to meet you.” Just as you are walking towards him, so he is coming towards you, and you will soon meet up with one another. The reason the messengers phrased Esau’s approach not as בא לקראתך, the usual syntax, but said הולך לקראתך , was to alert Yaakov that while on the way, Esau was mobilizing his soldiers, before meeting up with his brother.

וגם הולך לקראתך, “and he is also coming towards you, etc.” It is possible to explain the word וגם as including the celestial representative of Esau. who was also on the way to engage Yaakov in battle as we know from verse 25 ויאבק איש עמו, “a man wrestled with him.” This would reinforce what I have written earlier that if the מלאכים which the Torah describes Yaakov as having sent ahead as spies or messengers had been mere mortal human beings, how would these have known anything about the celestial representative of Esau being on the way to engage Yaakov in mortal combat? The reason the Torah uses two expressions to describe Yaakov’s fear, i.e. ויירא ויצר לו, is that Yaakov worried both about the approaching physical ecounter with Esau and at the same time he worried about the spiritual confrontation which was apparently about to take place between his and Esau’s spirit.

But he acts towards you as the wicked Eisov... Otherwise, why does it say, “Eisov”? Yaakov had only one brother! Perforce, “Eisov” connotes he who is famous for extreme wickedness. (Re’m) A further explanation: Rashi is answering the question: It should say באנו אל עשו אחיך, like it is written אל עשו אחיו at the beginning of the parshah. Why does it say אל אחיך אל עשו? Maharshal explains [that Rashi is answering the question:] Why does it say אל twice? We need not object: [Accordingly,] why did Yaakov say לאדוני לעשו (v. 4)? For the answer is: There, Yaakov was commanding them to speak with honor. But here, where they are reporting the reply to Yaakov, why did they speak in this fashion? Thus Rashi explains as he does.

וגם הולך לקראתך, “he is also coming toward you happy to welcome you.”

out of the joy at the impending reunion he approaches to meet with four hundred men, all in your honour. This, basically, is the plain meaning of the verse. This is also the plain meaning of Exodus 4,14 where the Torah describes Aaron coming to meet his brother Moses whom he had not seen for many years, and the Torah adds that he is overjoyed at the prospect.

וגם הולך לקראתך, he also reveals his hatred of you by marching with 400 men against you now that he knows you are in the vicinity.

וארבע מאות איש עמו., “and four hundred (armed) men with him.” These men were all ready for combat. The reason the Torah did not describe these men as coming with Esau by the word אתו rather than עמו, is that the expression אתו is reserved for the righteous. We find it in connection with the righteous Joseph such as in Genesis 39,23 באשר ה' את, seeing that G’d was with him.” The reverse is true of the wicked when we read in Chronicles 2,32,8 עמו זרוע בשר, ועמנו ה' אלוקינו לעזרנו, “with him is an arm of flesh; but with us is the Lord our G’d.”

The words "we have come to your brother" may also mean that although he has met us with a happy face i.e. displaying brotherliness, we displayed anger ourselves seeing that he has remained Esau true to form. This is what the Midrash we have quoted meant when it described the messengers as appearing garbed in fiery garments riding on fiery horses. The reason the messengers did not bring back a definitive evaluation was because outwardly Esau displayed brotherliness whereas in his heart he was still the same old Esau, hating Jacob.

וארבע מאות איש עמו, “he took them along in order to honour you.”

וארבע מאות איש עמו, he does not walk toward you with peaceful intentions but he is on his way in order to fight you.

ויירא...ויצר HE FEARED GREATLY AND WAS DISTRESSED — He was afraid lest he be killed, and he was distressed that he might have to kill someone (Genesis Rabbah 76:2).

THEN JACOB WAS GREATLY AFRAID. This was because they told him that Esau had gone forth from his city and was coming to meet Jacob, and moreover, that he took along many men — four hundred. He thus greatly feared for his life, for he said, “He has not taken all these men except for the purpose of waging war against me.”
It appears to me in this matter that Esau did not receive the messengers properly and paid them no heed. Perhaps they did not even come before him for he did not at all give permission for them to come before him and speak to him for otherwise, Scripture would have related that Esau questioned them concerning his brother’s welfare and about his circumstances and those of his household and children. [Scripture further would have told how Esau requested] that they convey greetings to Jacob and tell him that he is proceeding towards him to see him, and they would have told it thus to Jacob. Scripture, however, does not narrate that the messengers transmitted a word in Esau’s name. Instead, he [Esau] kept his wrath in his heart,¹⁵See Amos 1:11. and he came with his army for the purpose of doing Jacob evil. Now the messengers had investigated the matter in the camp, and they knew that he was going to meet Jacob. This is the meaning of the word vegam (and moreover) [in the verse, and moreover he goeth to meet thee], for they said, “We came to thy brother Esau,¹⁶Verse 7 here. but he did not answer us a word, and he sent you no greeting, and moreover, he goeth to meet thee with might and an army.” This was why he added fear to his fear, as Scripture says, And Jacob was greatly afraid, and was distressed. And so our Rabbis said that the messengers recognized hatred in him[Esau]. Thus they said:¹⁷Bereshith Rabbah 75:7. “We came to thy brother Esau. You behave towards him like a brother, but he behaves towards you like Esau the villain.” However, in the end, when Esau saw the great honor that Jacob bestowed upon him and how he prostrated himself before him, bowing to the ground seven times¹⁸Genesis 33:3. from the distance until he approached him, his mercy was aroused, and he thought that Jacob is recognizing his birthright and his pre-eminence, as I have explained.¹⁹Above, Verse 5. And with this he was comforted, for the hearts belong to G-d, Who turns them whither He will.²⁰See Proverbs 21:1.

ויירא ויצר, the reason why the Torah repeated the emotions Yaakov experienced twice but in different words was to underline how strongly he felt this fear. In Bereshit Rabbah 76,2 these two expressions are described as basically meaning the same thing, the only difference being that the former is intransitive, Yaakov being afraid of being killed, whereas the latter describes a similar fear, but that of having to kill one’s adversary.

ויירא יעקב, in his heart; Although he had pretended to his messengers that Esau approached with a large delegation in order to honour him, he did not believe this himself, but he was convinced that Esau’s intentions were hostile.

ויירא יעקב, Jacob was afraid, etc. He prepared himself to either kill or be killed. He was very afraid of being killed; he was pained by the possible need to kill Easu in self-defence. This is why the verse mentions מאד, very much, in connection with this fear.

ויירא יעקב, “Yaakov was afraid (when he heard this). He worried that the merit of Esau having practiced the commandment of honouring father and mother during the 35 years when Yaakov had not been able to do this, would give him an edge in any hostile confrontation.

Yaakov was very frightened. When Yaakov realized that he was afraid despite Hashem’s assurance, he reckoned that he was not worthy of miraculous salvation and began preparing naturalistic stratagems instead.

ויירא lest he be killed. You might ask: Had Hashem not promised him when he left his father’s house, “And I will bring you back to this land” (28:15)? The Gemara (Berachos 4a, Sanhedrin 98b) answers: [He feared that] sin might cause [the promise not to be fulfilled]. Another answer: The promise was only, “And I will bring you back to this land,” meaning to Eretz Yisrael, but not to his father’s house. See Re’m, R. Noson, Gur Aryeh and Minchas Yaakov.

Wir können uns sehr wohl in Jakobs Lage versetzen, und müssen dies um so mehr, je bedeutsamer die Begegnung ist, in deren Folge Jakob eine Offenbarung wurde, welche das göttliche Gesetz dem Jakobsvolke zur ewigen Erinnerung in das tägliche Mahl verwebte.

ויירא יעקב, “Yaakov was greatly afraid;” seeing that Yaakov had had many assurances from G–d, why would he be afraid of the encounter with his brother Esau? He realised –belatedly-that he had erred in staying with Lavan after having completed his 14 years of service, in order to marry. During the years when he had worked to amass material wealth, his brother Esau had performed the commandment of honouring father and mother. He was afraid that he did not have sufficient merits to overcome Esau’s lead in that department. (B’reshit Rabbah 76,2) According to the Midrash, G–d’s promise to protect him, was limited to while he was outside the borders of the Holy Land.

ויירא יעקב מאד (upon hearing this) “Yaakov was very much afraid;” you may well ask that after Yaakov had been met by angels, as we read at the end of the last portion, and these angels were clearly meant to protect him, what did he have to worry about? This obvious question is answered by our sages by explaining that one of these angels was Michael, Yaakov’s protective angel, whereas the second one was Samael, Esau’s angel. Knowing this, Yaakov had no way of knowing which of these two angels was more powerful. This is why he became very fearful. Yaakov feared that although he had sent a conciliatory message to Esau, he was afraid that through some inadvertent sin he might have committed recently, he might fall victim to his older brother. He was especially conscious of the fact that he had overstayed his time at Lavan for six years in order to amass some money, instead of returning to the land of Canaan and fulfilling the commandment of honouring his father and mother, especially so, seeing that his father was blind. (Based on B’reshit Rabbah 76,2) He therefore did not credit Esau with having friendly intentions. Another exegesis about the words: באנו אל אחיך, ”we have come to your brother;” (but he did not respond with a single word). He only said that he would proceed to meet Yaakov; he did not have to come to him, and the messengers returning added that Esau was accompanied by four hundred men. Esau did say that he would speak with Yaakov personally. Yaakov’s fear resulted from the fact that now he was no wiser than before. He had no clue as to Esau’s real intentions.

ויחץ, Rabbah Chiyah said that in this part of the verse the Torah teaches us prudence. A man must not place all his eggs in one basket.

ויצר, a word derived from the same root as Numbers 25,17 צרור את המדינים, “harass the Midianites.” The construction is not unlike that of the word ותקל in Genesis 16,4 which describes Hagar’s attitude to her mistress after she had become pregnant by Avraham. The word there is derived from the root קלל.

ויצר לו that he might kill others. [Question: Why did this distress him?] The answer is: Yaakov feared he might kill Eisov, and Yitzchok loved Eisov and considered him a good person. It would pain Yitzchok greatly and bring him to curse Yaakov. (Midrash Tanchuma) An alternative answer: Yaakov surely did not fear killing Eisov, for it says in Sanhedrin 72a: “If someone comes to kill you, kill him first.” Rather, Yaakov feared that he might kill Eisov’s men, who came to kill not Yaakov but Yaakov’s men. Only Eisov came to kill Yaakov. Indeed, Eisov’s men would be attacking Yaakov’s men, and one may save the attacked even by taking the attacker’s life. But if injuring the attacker’s limb would suffice to save the one being attacked, then for killing the attacker [instead of just injuring him] one is liable for the death penalty. Thus, Yaakov feared he might kill them in the confusion of war even where injuring a limb would suffice. Some ask: Why did Yaakov fear being killed? Eisov said, “When the mourning days for my father approach, I will kill my brother Yaakov” (27:41), and Yitzchok was still alive. A further question: Why did Eisov send Elifaz to kill Yaakov [at the time that Yitzchok was alive]? It seems the answer is: When Eisov said he will not kill Yaakov while his father is alive, this applied only if Yaakov was with Yitzchok. But if he was elsewhere, Eisov would kill him. See Minchas Yaakov.

Inasmuch as the angels had warned him of Esau's duplicity, that he would pretend to be brotherly, Jacob was afraid not to prepare himself for war in the event Esau planned to kill him while he was unarmed. On the other hand "it distressed him" that the very fact that their encounter would be an armed one might precipitate a war which Esau had not really intended until he saw Jacob armed. His hatred would be rekindled only because he presumed that Jacob confronted him in a fighting stance when he looked at his weapons. As a result of such considerations Jacob divided his camp; the first camp would display friendliness whereas the second camp would be armed and ready for battle.

Wie Jakob und Esau hier einander gegenübertraten, so stehen sich bis auf den heutigen Tag Jakob und Esau gegenüber. Jakob: der dienende, arbeitende, sorgenerfüllte, mit Familiengliedern gesegnete Familienvater. Esaw: der "fertige, gemachte" Mensch. Was Jakob trotz des erhaltenen Segens und der erhaltenen Erstgeburt erst durch zwanzig mühevolle Jahre hatte erringen und erkämpfen müssen und nun als das größte Los, als die größte Errungenschaft mit heimbrachte: selbständiger Familienvater sein zu können, das ist andern die von der Wiege an mitgegebene natürlichste Voraussetzung, das hatte Esaw, "der fertige, gemachte" Mensch, schon, als Jakob erst auszog, in vollem Maße besessen; und während Jakob mit seiner Arbeit das Glück errang, Familienvater zu sein, war Esau inzwischen eine politische Größe, war Volks-Heerführer, ein אלוף mit seinen Reisigen geworden. So der äußere Gegensatz des ,"Fersenhalters" und des "Gemachten".

ויצר לו, “he was distressed;” his distress was over his inability to overcome his fear of Esau in spite of the assurances he had received from G–d. (attributed to Harav Eliav hacohen) An alternate interpretation. The commentator agrees with the meaning of the words: ויירא. However, he interprets the word ויצר as referring to his fear when hearing that Esau was on the way with an armed escort planning to kill him. He knew from his mother that although Esau had sworn to await the death of his father before killing Yaakov (Genesis 27,41) he had changed his mind; when he is quoted as referring to G–d as “the G–d of my father Yitzchok,” instead of “the G–d of my father,” that Yitzchok had died in the meantime, (during the 36 years he had been away from home) as G–d does not associate His name with a living person. (Compare B’reshit Rabbah on that verse.)

ויצר לו, “he was anxious;” the letter י has the vowel tzeyreh underneath it;

ויחץ, from the root חצה, to divide into half. We find this word in this sense in Numbers 31,42 describing Moses as having divided the booty from the Midianites into two halves.

Zwei Prinzipien sinds, die sich in Jakob und Esau begegnen und deren Kampf und Sieg die Weltgeschichte bedeutet. Das menschlich beglückende und beglückte Familien- leben in Jakob, der Glanz politischer Macht und Größe in Esau. Jahrtausende herab gilts dem Kampfe: ob es genüge, Mensch zu sein, und alle soziale und politische Macht und Gestaltung nur Wert habe als Mittel, dieses Höheziel aller Menschenbestrebungen zu erreichen, oder ob alles Menschliche im Menschen, Haus und Familienleben, nur da sei, um den Trophäen der Politik etc etc. zum Unterwurf zu dienen.

ויחץ את העם אשר אתו, “he split up the entourage that was with him;” Yaakov had said to himself: “if Esau should see me fleeing, (instead) I will awaken feelings of hatred within him.”

Und wie ganz anders ist Jakob dem Esau gegenüber, als eben dem Laban. Wir erkennen, welche Kraft das Bewusstsein der Unschuld gibt, und welch ein drückendes Gefühl selbst auch nur aus dem Anschein einer Verschuldung erwächst. Zwanzig Jahre Kampf gegen unschuldig zu erleidendes Unrecht schlagen nicht so nieder, als eine Minute einem Menschen gegenüber, von dem wir wissen, dass er sich durch uns gekränkt fühlen muss und die Motive, die uns, wenn auch nicht rechtfertigen, doch entschuldigen können, gar nicht einzusehen vermag!

Jakob fürchtete, obgleich ihn die Schutz zusagende Gottesverheißung geleitete; מכאן, bemerkt das lehrende Wort der Weisen, שאין הבטחה לצדיקים בע"הז, es gibt keine unbedingte Zusicherung dem Frommen in diesem Leben. Eine jede ist durch fortdauernde Untadelhaftigkeit bedingt, eine jede kann in jedem Augenblick durch einen Fehltritt verscherzt werden; שמא יגרום החטא, das ist die Besorgnis, die aus der Brust der erwähltesten Frommen nie weicht. — ויֵצר לו — ist der Form nach von יצר nicht von צרך oder צור, dem gewöhnlichen Ausdruck für Not und Bedrängnis. יצר das verstärkte יסר, binden, heißt: bilden, formen. Alles Bilden ist ein Beschränken des Stoffes in ein durch den Zweck gegebenes Maß. Sind doch diese Begriffe so verwandt, dass wir auch bilden durch צור ausgedrückt finden: 2 ויצר אותו בחרט. B. M 32, 414 und צורָה geradezu: Form heißt. Vielleicht ist es ein Unterschied, ob Not durch צור oder durch יצר ausgedrückt wird. צר ist die äußere Beschränkung unseres Kreises, so dass wir uns nicht mehr frei bewegen können. Sie lässt unser inneres Wesen unangetastet. Ihr Gegensatz ist מרחב, die Weite. יצר aber wäre eine solche beengende Gestaltung der Verhältnisse, dass wir ihrer Obmacht als völlig willenloser Stoff zur Beute fallen. Sie gewinnen eine solche Obermacht über uns, dass sie aus uns machen können, was sie wollen. In solcher Lage fühlte sich Jakob damals Esau gegenüber, und das ist die Lage, in der wir uns Jahrhunderte herab den Esauvölkern gegenüber befanden. Es ist das jener Zustand, den die Galuthverkündung חמת קרי (3.B. 9. 26, 28) "Wüten des Zufalls"; nennt, dass unser Heil, unser Leben, unser Fortkommen nirgends das Beabsichtigte, Maßgebende war, sondern sich den Zwecken aller Übrigen als das Unberechtigte hingeben und sich mit dem begnügen musste, was als Abhub von der Glückstafel des andern uns zufällig zufiel. ויצר לו sagte demnach: Jakob fühlte, dass er der Willkür des an der Spitze einer bewaffneten Macht gegen ihn heranziehenden Esau völlig preisgegeben sei, und, um doch etwas zu retten — teilte er. So war auch unsere Zerstreuung im Galuth das Mittel unserer Erhaltung und Rettung. Nie und nirgends konnte uns Esaus Schwert auf einmal erreichen. Während wir am Rhein bluteten, waren unsere Brüder im Slavenreiche glücklich, und umgekehrt. צרקה עשה ה"בה לישראל שפזרן לבין האומות (Pesachim 87 b).. Dasselbe tat Jakob im Drange der Not.

המחנה האחת והכהו TO THE ONE CAMP AND SMITE IT — The word מחנה is treated grammatically as masculine or feminine: in (Psalms 27:3) “Though a camp should encamp (תחנה) against me” it is feminine; in (Genesis 33:8) “this (הזה) camp” it is masculine. Similarly there are other words treated grammatically as both masculine and feminine. For example, the word שמש in (Genesis 19:23) “The sun was risen (יצא) upon the earth” and in (Psalms 19:7) “His (the sun’s) going forth (מוצאו) is from the end of the heaven”; here it is masculine, but in (2 Kings 3:22) “and the sun shone (זרחה) upon the water” it is feminine. Similarly with רוח: in (Job 1:19) “and behold there came (באה) a great wind” it is feminine, and in the same verse “and smote (ויגע) the four corners of the house” it is masculine; in (1 Kings 19:11) “and a great (גדולה) and strong (וחזק) wind rent (מפרק) the mountains” it is both masculine and feminine. So also in the case of אש: in (Numbers 16:35) “and fire came forth (יצאה) from the Lord” it is feminine, and in (Psalms 104:4) “The flaming (להט) fire” it is masculine.

THEN THE CAMP WHICH IS LEFT SHALL ESCAPE. In line with the simple meaning of Scripture, Jacob stated this as a possibility. He said that perhaps one camp shall escape, for during the time he [Esau] smites one, the other will flee, or perhaps his anger will subside or deliverance will come to them from G-d. And so the Rabbis said in Bereshith Rabbah,²¹76:2. “The Torah teaches you proper conduct: a man should not leave all his money in one corner.” And Rashi wrote: “‘Then the camp which is left shall escape in spite of him for I will fight against him.’ He prepared himself for three things: for prayer, for giving Esau a gift, and for war.” And I have seen in the Midrash:²²Tanchuma, Buber, Vayishlach 6. “What did Jacob do? He armed his people underneath, and clothed them in white from outside, and he prepared himself for three things.” And this is the most correct [interpretation, in line with Rashi and the Midrash, who say that he prepared himself also for war, as opposed to the simple meaning first mentioned].
The intent of this is that Jacob knew that all his seed would not fall into Esau’s hands. Therefore, in any case, one camp would be saved. This also implies that the children of Esau will not formulate a decree against us designed to obliterate our name entirely, but they will do evil to some of us in some of their countries. One of their kings will formulate a decree in his country against our wealth or our persons while simultaneously another king will show compassion in his place and save the refugees.²³A clear echo of Ramban’s times is hereby heard. While waves of persecution, expulsions and massacres were a steady feature of Jewish life in most European countries, refuge was always found in some country. At the time of Ramban, Spain was a place of relative relief for Jews from France and Germany. And so the Rabbis said in Bereshith Rabbah,²⁴76:3. “If Esau come to the one camp, and smite it — these are our brethren in the south. Then the camp which is left shall escape — these are our brethren in the Diaspora.” Our Rabbis thus saw that this chapter alludes also to the future generations.

לפלטה. The two camps were positioned quite a distance one from the other, so that if it would become obvious that disaster struck one camp the other would have a chance to flee.

והיה המחנה הנשאר לפלטה, while he will be busy gorging himself on the loot captured in the first camp the second camp will be able to make good its escape, or will have prepared itself for battle.

ויאמר אם יבא עשו, He said: "If Esau were to come to the one camp, etc." In the event Esau would come upon the first camp and defeat it, the second camp which he had prepared for battle would help even the first camp not to be annihilated since as soon as Esau's hostile intentions were obvious the second camp would engage him. Jacob did all this in order to save G'd the trouble of performing a miracle.

ויאמר, the meaning is clear, i.e. he said this to himself.

והיה המחנה הנשאר לפליטה, “so that the remaining camp may escape.” Some believe that the plain meaning of the verse is that Yaakov hoped that if the first camp that would be attacked by Esau would be defeated, then the people in the second camp might be able to save themselves through fleeing in time, or Esau’s anger might have spent itself so that he would not give pursuit, or that help might materialize through Divine intervention. Rashi explains that the words mean that the second camp would definitely survive as Yaakov himself would engage Esau in battle. Personally, I think that Yaakov’s certainty was based on the fact that he knew that not all his offspring would fall victim into Esau’s hands at anyone time. This was also to be a sign for his sons to remember that the descendants of Esau will never be able to obliterate all the Jewish people. Whenever, during the long years of our exile, one king or government would issue harsh decrees against us, another king somewhere would be prepared to offer refuge and shelter.

אם יבא עשו אל המחנה האחת והכהו, “if Esau comes to one of the camps and defeats it, etc.” The first camp Esau was to encounter was that which contained Zilpah and Bilhah and their respective children. If he were to kill the people in that camp —

Against his will, because I will do battle with him. I.e., while I will do battle with him, the second camp surely will have time to escape. Maharshal writes that Rashi inferred this because it is not written, “Perhaps the remaining camp will survive,” but, “The remaining camp will survive.” This implies, “Against his will, because I will do battle....” Rashi said all this, based on Scriptural inferences, to support Chazal’s teaching that Yaakov prepared himself for three things. [Rashi says “against his will,” i.e., it surely will be.] This is because the verse cannot mean “perhaps” [the remaining camp will survive]. If so, it would be more logical to gather everyone in one camp to fight Eisov—for maybe they will win due to greater numbers. However if the remaining camp will [surely] survive, against Eisov’s will, it is proper for Yaakov to have divided them into two camps. For it is better to act in a manner that will surely save one camp, even if it places the other camp in greater danger, than to put them in a situation in which they are not sure whether they all will be lost or saved. (Nachalas Yaakov)

Hier steht ein kleines Wörtchen, das die ganze Innigkeit ausdrückt, die man sonst vermissen würde. Es sind ja fühlende Wesen, von deren erbarmungslosem Niedermetzeln sich nicht so trocken sprechen lässt. מחנה ist in der Regel männlich und tritt ja hier auch, ,הנשאר והכהו, nur männlich auf. Indem Jakob sich aber dessen Untergang denkt, nennt er es weiblich: אם יבא עשו אל המחנה האחת, in diesem אחת ist der Seufzer hörbar, der dabei sich Jakobs Brust entrang: wenn Esau zu dem einen "armen" Lager kommt.

אל המחנה האחת, “to one of the camps;” some commentators understand the word האחת here, as a reference to the camp containing the matriarchs and their children. והיה המחנה הנשאר לפלטה, “this will afford the people in the remaining camp to escape.” [Presumably Esau will not be aware that there are two camps, so that he will not bother to search for it. Ed.] An alternate explanation of Yaakov’s strategy: while Esau will battle with the people making up the first camp, there will be time enough for the people making up the second camp to flee and escape destruction.

והיה המחנה הנשאר לפליטה THEN THE REMAINING CAMP MAY ESCAPE in spite of him, for I will fight against him He prepared himself for three things: to give him a present — as it states (Genesis 32:22) “So, the present passed before him”; for prayer — as it states (Genesis 32:10), “And he said, ‘O God of my father Abraham”; for war — as it states in this verse, “then the remaining camp may escape”, for I will fight against him (Tanchuma Yashan 1:8:6).

המחנה האחת, a feminine mode, as occurs also in Psalms 27,3 אם תחנה עלי מחנה, “should an army besiege me.”

המחנה, the word is both masculine and feminine, the adjective האחת being feminine, whereas the adjective הנשאר is in the masculine mode.

He prepared himself for three things. All three are derived from Scripture [see Pesikta D’Rav Kahana 19:3]. And “war” is derived from, “The remaining camp will survive,” showing that this phrase refers to war. Thus Rashi explains it as, “I will do battle with him.”

הנשאר, now we have the masculine mode. This is one of many instances in which a noun appears sometimes in the masculine mode and sometimes in the feminine mode. Well known examples are Genesis 19,23 השמש יצא על הארץ (where the word שמש is treated as masculine), and Jonah 4,8 ' where it is treated as feminine, i.e. ותך השמש. (whereas in the beginning of the same verse it is treated as masculine, i.e. ויזרח). Compare also Psalms 148,8 and Job 1,19.

ואלהי אבי יצחק AND GOD OF MY FATHER ISAAC — But in another place (Genesis 31:42) he said, “And the Dread of Isaac”! Then also why did he again mention the Proper Name of God (first invoking him as God of Abraham, God of Isaac, and then continuing “O Lord, who saidst unto me”)? It should have been written “O God of Abraham and God of Isaac (omitting ‘O Lord’) who saidst unto me, “Return unto thy country” etc. But the explanation is as follows: Jacob said to the Holy One, blessed be He, “You made me two promises. One was when I left my father’s house at Beersheba when You said to me (Genesis 28:3) “I am the Lord, the God of Abraham thy father and the God of Isaac”, and on that occasion you promised me (Genesis 28:15) “and I will keep thee whithersoever thou goest”. Then again in Laban’s house You said to me (Genesis 31:3) “Return unto the land of thy fathers and to thy kindred and I will be with thee”. There You revealed Yourself to me by Your Proper Name alone, as it is said (Genesis 31:3) “And the Lord said unto Jacob “Return unto the land of thy fathers etc.” Relying upon these two promises I now come before You invoking you as “the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac” and also simply as “the Lord” under which names You made me these two promises respectively.

אלוקי אבי אברהם ואלוקי אבי יצחק, Who has made me promises using these words to identify Himself to me when I had departed from Beer Sheva. (28,13.)

אלוקי אבי אברהם, Yaakov first listed the praises of the Lord, acknowledging His deeds of loving kindness, before coming to the point of pleading for His help in his hour of need. When the sages of the Great Assembly formulated our daily prayers they followed the example set by Yaakov here in devoting the first three benedictions to praising the Lord and acknowledging both His power and His Holiness, before launching into listing our requests from Him.

ויאמר יעקב אלוקי אבי אברהם ואלוקי אבי יצחק, “You are the One Who has assured me when I left my father’s house that due to the merit of my fathers You would assist and protect me. (28,13). Now I turn to You in prayer relying on their merit in hoping that You will keep Your promise. Secondly, it was You Who has told me while I was in Charan to go back to the land of my fathers since their country was my country.

אלוקי אבי אברהם, “the G’d of my father Avraham, etc.” It would have appeared more appropriate for Yaakov to first mention the Ineffable Name (as he did later in the same verse). He should have said ה' אלוקי אבי אברהם. This should have been followed by אלוקי אבי יצחק האומר אלי.

God of my father. Yaakov mentions two reasons why he should not have been afraid: 1) because of the merits of his fathers, and 2) because of Hashem’s promise. And since neither involved his own merit, even sin should not have been a cause for concern.

Return to the Land of your father and to your birthplace, and I will be with you... Yaakov was saying: Since You promised to be with me when I come to the Land of my fathers, if I die on the way, it will turn out that Your promise to me was not fulfilled.

Yaakov included all the 13 attributes G’d revealed to Moses in Exodus 34, 6-7 in his prayer here. The words אלקי אברהם ואלוקי יצחק represented the first two of G’d’s attributes, i.e. “mercy and justice.” The words שוב לארצך G’d had said and which Yaakov quotes, refer to the third attribute, the one called רחום in Exodus. The words ואטיבה עמך correspond to the attribute חנון in Exodus, i.e. loving kindness totally unearned by the recipient. The words ארך אפים in the list given to Moses is represented in Yaakov’s prayer by the word קטונתי. Yaakov meant that but for G’d’s long lasting patience, he could not have endured. The word is reminiscent of the line in Amos 7,5 חדל נא מי יקום יעקב כי קטן הוא, “Oh Lord, refrain! How will Yaakov survive, he is so small!”

In mir vererbt sich ja das, was durch dich dem Abraham und Jizchak geworden, und du bist ja auch mir selber nahe getreten; wenn ich jetzt heimkehre, so folge ich ja deinem Geheiße; —

ויאמר יעקב, “Yaakov said (in his prayer to G-d); according to Rashi on verse 10, in 31,42 Yaakov avoided referring to his father’s G-d by His name in connection with Him, but had used a euphemism, i.e. פחד יצחק, whereas now he speaks of אלוקי אבי יצחק, without using any euphemism. He answers that Yaakov here refers to the promise of G-d in his dream with the ladder, in which he quotes G-d as having described Himself as the אלוקי יצחק, “the G-d of Yitzchok.” In 31,3, G-d had asked him to return to the land of his fathers. In recalling these instructions from G-d which he had complied with, he sees the justification for appealing to G-d to save him from Esau while he is on the way to fulfill G-d’s commandment.

ואטיבה עמך, You also added that You would be good to me and would remain on my side. We have already explained that when the Torah repeats something we must relate to the message and not to the minor changes in the words chosen to express the same thought a second time. (compare our comments on 21,2 and 24,39).

According to a kabbalistic approach, if Yaakov had done as we have just suggested, the Ineffable Name would have been perceived as an allusion to repentance, i.e. as if it represented the attribute of Justice. [Rabbi Chavell, quoting האזרח בישראל, as well as תורת חיים, explains that the emanations are perceived as proceeding from the highest to the lowest. In a descending order we have כתר, חכמה, בינה,, (the latter being symbolic of repentance). It is followed by חסד -גבורה- תפארת and their branches. Had Yaakov used the Ineffable Name in connection with Avraham, that name would have alluded to the emanation בינה. [Our sages want Avraham to be associated primarily with the attribute of חסד, akin to “Mercy,” and when we begin to pray we first mention the patriarch Avraham as a symbol of that attribute. Ed.] We also conclude the benediction with a reference to Avraham in order to stress that we rely primarily on the attribute of Mercy when addressing our prayers, i.e. our requests to G’d. Yaakov also used that attribute last and that is why the attribute appears next to Yitzchak, though Yitzchak represents a higher attribute as we have pointed out elsewhere. You will note that when G’d spoke to Yaakov earlier when He told him to return to the land of birth (31,3), He also employed first the Ineffable Name.

The words מכל החסדים ומכל האמת correspond to the words ורב חסד ואמת in the list of G’d’s attributes in Exodus. The words ועתה הייתי לשני מחנות in our verse correspond to the words נוצר חסד לאלפים in the parallel paragraph in Exodus. G’d has preserved the חסד performed by both Avraham and Yitzchok to be credited to the account of their grandson Yaakov. The words אלפים (plural), correspond to שני מחנות, 2 camps.

The words מכל החסדים ומכל האמת correspond to the words ורב חסד ואמת in the list of G’d’s attributes in Exodus. The words ועתה הייתי לשני מחנות in our verse correspond to the words נוצר חסד לאלפים in the parallel paragraph in Exodus. G’d has preserved the חסד performed by both Avraham and Yitzchok to be credited to the account of their grandson Yaakov. The words אלפים (plural), correspond to שני מחנות, 2 camps.

הצילני נא מיד אחי, these words correspond to the words נושא עון in Exodus, meaning that the sin has not caused Yaakov’s downfall.

הצילני נא מיד אחי, these words correspond to the words נושא עון in Exodus, meaning that the sin has not caused Yaakov’s downfall.

מיד עשו, a reference to a sin of a far more serious nature than עון, described as פשע in the list of attributes in Exodus.

כי ירא אנכי, these words correspond to the word וחטאה in the list of attributes in Exodus. It is a minor type of sin, the one committed inadvertently.

ואתה אמרת, these words and their continuation correspond to the word ונקה in the list of G’d’s attributes revealed to Moses in Exodus 34,7.

קטנתי מכל החסדים I AM TOO UNWORTHY OF ALL THE MERCIES (This may be rendered “I am small — unworthy — because of all the kindnesses) — My merits are diminished in consequence of all the kindness and truth which You have already shown me. For this reason I am afraid: perhaps, since You made these promises to me, I have become depraved (נתקלקלתי) by sin (another version of Rashi has נתלכלכתי, I have become defiled by sin) and this may cause me to be delivered unto Esau’s power (Shabbat 32a).

‘KATONTI’ OF ALL THE MERCIES, AND OF ALL THE TRUTH. “My merits have diminished as a consequence of all the kindness and truth which You have already shown me. For this reason I am afraid lest I have become depraved by sin since the time You made these promises to me, and this may cause me to be delivered into the hand of Esau.” This is Rashi’s language. But it is not a correct interpretation because it does not fit into the language of the verse, [for katan refers to size, not quantity]. Furthermore, Jacob said afterwards, And Thou saidst: I will surely do thee good and make thy seed as the sand of the sea,²⁵Verse 13 here. but of what efficacy would this promise be if subsequent sin caused him to be deprived of it? Moreover, Jacob mentioned two promises which the Holy One, blessed be He, had made him — one in Beth-el,²⁶Above, 28:15. and one in Haran²⁷Ibid., 31:3. — and he first stated the promise given to him in Haran, O Eternal, who saidst unto me: Return unto thy country, and to thy kindred, and I will do to thee good,²⁸Verse 10 here. this being what was said to him when he was about to leave the house of Laban: Return unto the land of thy fathers, and to thy kindred, and I will be with thee.²⁷Ibid., 31:3. Now following this promise, G-d did not bestow good upon Jacob to account for all these mercies and truths of which Jacob mentioned that his merits should be diminished on account of them.
The word katonti rather means that he is too small to have been worthy of all the mercies which He had done for him. Likewise, How shall Jacob stand? for he is small,²⁹Amos 7:2. that is, too small to be able to bear all that was decreed against him. And so the Rabbis said in Bereshith Rabbah,³⁰76:4. “Katonti. Rabbi Abba said that it means ‘I am not worthy.’” Now hachasadim (the mercies) are the kindnesses which G-d did for him without having vowed to do them, and ha’emeth (the truth) is the kindness which He promised him and fulfilled. Jacob thus said that he was unworthy of G-d’s promising him and performing those kindnesses which He promised him, nor was he worthy of those other many kindnesses which He did for him without having promised to do them.
But I have not understood the opinion of Onkelos who translated, “from all the mercies and all the good,” when he is accustomed to translate chesed ve’emeth as “mercy and truth.” Perhaps Onkelos is rendering chasadim here as referring to Jacob’s rescue, that is, the many times He had saved him from his troubles. Onkelos rendered emeth as referring to all this good which Jacob possessed, for G-d had given him sons and daughters, wealth and belongings, and honor.
The correct interpretation appears to me to be that long-lasting kindnesses such as children and wealth are called emeth, which is from the root of emunah (faith), just as: ‘Vene’eman’ (and confirmed shall be) thy house and thy kingdom forever,³¹II Samuel 7:16. This was said to David, whose kingdom was assured of existence. which connotes assured existence; His bread shall be given, his waters ‘ne’emanim’ (shall be sure),³²Isaiah 33:16. just as the prophet said, Wilt thou indeed be unto me as a deceitful brook as waters that are not ‘ne’emanu’ (sure)?³³Jeremiah 15:18.

קטנתי מכל, from qualifying for all the

קטונתי מכל החסדים, I was not worthy of all the acts of kindness I have experienced at Your hands.

קטונתי מכל החסדים, "I am not worthy of all the kindnesses, etc." Jacob first mentioned חסדים, kindness, and then אמת, divine assistance, which he felt he had qualified for. Actually, Jacob should have mentioned the אמת before mentioning the חסדים, something he was not even entitled to. He mentioned the חסדים first because they are something that it is impossible for man to repay to G'd. He called it אמת because man is incapable of requiting these acts of kindness. We know this from Job 35,7: אם צדקת מה תתן לו, "even assuming that you were righteous, what can you possibly give to Him?" This is why services rendered for the dead are called חסד של אמת, seeing that the dead cannot repay us (Bereshit Rabbah 96,5).

קטנתי, I am not asking You G’d to help me in a manner commensurate with my merits, as I am perfectly aware that these are utterly inadequate.
כל החסדים וכל האמת אשר עשית את עבדך, Yaakov described as חסד the acts of unearned love G’d had performed for him, whereas he described as אמת, “truth,” i.e. deserved compensation, that G’d would keep His promise to him. (“Here, I am going to be with you, etc.” 28,15) He feels entitled to expect G’d to keep His promises when these are of a positive nature. When G’d had said to him that He would protect him wherever he would go, this had not been a conditional promise, dependent on Yaakov being worthy of such protection. He is aware that he may have sinned, but expects the promise to be kept for the sake of his father and grandfather both of whom G’d Himself had invoked in association with this promise. He feels that he deserves such protection, having heard that Esau is an unreformed sinner, still relating to him with hostility.

And of all the truth: Onkelos translates it as, "and from all the good," which is not like his translation in every [other] place, which is "truth." And see Ramban, who explains that lasting kindnesses are called truth. And such is [also] the language of Scripture: "And the Lord is a true God, a living God and the eternal King" (Jeremiah 10:10). And in Vayikra Rabbah 26:1 (Parshat Emor), it explains that the end of the verse explains what is a true God: "Because He is 'a [living] God and the eternal King.'" [That is] to say, because He is everlasting. And [this is] like the remark in the Talmud (Shabbat 104a), "Truth is lasting." And so too is the good that is everlasting called truth. And so [Ya'akov said] that "You have done two goodnesses for me" - meaning "the kindnesses," which are the wealth; and "all the truth," which is that He chose him, such that a chosen nation will come from him and his offspring, to be everlasting. And it is for this very reason that Onkelos translated it as, "and of all the good."

קטונתי מכל החסדים, “I am unworthy of all the acts of love and kindness, etc.” According to Rashi, Yaakov means that each act of kindness performed on his behalf by G’d diminished the sum total of his remaining merit balance. Nachmanides does not accept this interpretation as linguistically correct, seeing that the words “small” and “big” are appropriate for bodies but not for concepts such as merits. These concepts are measured according to quality not according to quantity. The correct interpretation therefore is that Yaakov did not consider himself worthy of the kind deeds G’d had seen fit to perform in his interest. The difference between the חסדים and the אמת lies in deeds performed for his sake even without the benefit of his having vowed to give tithes and to build a Temple, They refer to the promises G’d had made him prior to his having made any vow whatsoever. The word אמת is a reference to assurances given to Yaakov by G’d, and these having been fulfilled (in his lifetime). They are named thus as man is entitled to expect G’d to make good on His promises. (unless he had done something to forfeit the claim these assurances were based on)

קטנתי מכל החסדים, “I am not worthy of all the kind acts You have performed for me.” This teaches us that when a person engages in prayer that he should emphasize his own inadequacies and extol the power of the One to whom he addresses his prayer. Yaakov made this point plain by describing his relationship with G’d as “your servant.” One must also mention the manifold and varied kind deeds which G’d had already performed for the supplicant. This is what King David did in Psalms 16,2 when he said אתה טובתי בל -עליך, “You are my Lord, my benefactor; there is none above You.” He meant that the experience he had had of G’d’s kind deeds had convinced him that there is no one equal to Him as a master. A master’s kindness vis-a-vis his servant is something entirely voluntary. Similarly, all the acts of kindness performed by G’d are not rooted in any claim man has upon G’d, but are totally spontaneous. Only after having expressed such sentiments as an introduction to one’s prayer does one proceed to ask for one’s specific needs. At this point Yaakov asked: “please save me!”
As to the meaning of the words ומכל האמת, “and of all the truth,” This suggests at first glance as if G’d acted out of a sense of obligation, i.e. attribute of Justice when performing these kind deeds. Onkelos, aware of our being apt to misconstrue the meaning of the word אמת in this instance, changed the meaning of the words when he translated them as מכל טבוון instead of as קשוט.
The plain meaning of the word אמת in our verse is: “seeing giving the land of Canaan to Yaakov was fulfillment of a long-standing promise by G’d to both Avraham, Yitzchak and himself, the fulfillment of that promise was not so much an act of kindness as an act of truth.” This is also the plain meaning of the verse in Micha 7,20 תתן אמת ליעקב חסד לישראל, “You give as an act of truth to Yaakov something that You promised to Avraham as an act of pure kindness.” G’d had not been under any obligation to promise the land of Israel to Avraham; He was, however, under an obligation to fulfill His promise to Avraham in Yaakov’s time.

I am unworthy, etc. - (Shabbat 32a): [Rabbi Yannai] said, "A person should never stand in a place of danger saying that they [on High] will perform a miracle for him, lest they do not perform a miracle for him. And [even] if they do perform a miracle for him, they will deduct it from his merits." Rabbi Ḥanin said, "What is the verse [that alludes to this]? When Jacob said, 'Katonti (I am not worthy) of all the mercies, and of all the truth, which You have shown unto Your servant'" (Genesis 32:11). ⁴ He explains "katonti," as my merits have become small. But ostensibly, this requires [further] study - as note that Ya'akov [only] used this expression out of modesty. So there is no hint here to the diminution of merits. And see Ramban and Maharsha, who have [already] pointed this out. But it appears to me that [its understanding] is according to that which is written in Bava Kamma 50b, "Anyone who says that the Holy One, blessed be He, is a Relinquisher will have his life relinquished." And if so, once Ya'akov said that he was not worthy of all the goodnesses; if so, they could not be done for him for free, but rather his merits [must have been] diminished.

My merits have diminished because of the kindnesses and truth... מכל החסדים means because of the kindnesses. ואת עבדך means, “That you have done with me.” Rashi is explaining that [in this verse,] את means “with.”

für mich freilich bete und bitte ich nicht, ich habe bereits so viel von dir erhalten, dass ich bereits dem mit meiner Dankespflicht nicht genügen kann, bin durch die Fülle deiner Wohlthaten ja schon ganz klein geworden. Denn nicht die absolute, sondern die aus dem Verhältnis zu dem Empfangenen sich ergebende relative Größe der Leistungen macht die Größe des Menschen aus. Wir laufen alle Gefahr, um so geringer zu sein, je mehr wir haben; —

קטונתי מכל החסדים, “I have not been worthy of all the acts of kindness;” Yaakov explains what prompts him to be so fearful; he says that G-d has already done more for him than he could have expected, seeing that he did not feel worthy of it. As a result of his unworthiness he was afraid thatEsau who had performed the commandment of honouring his father and mother all the years when he had been absent, had accumulated sufficient merits to emerge victorious in a military confrontation with him. [After all, his father had blessed him with being successful with his sword. Ed.] Whenever the expression חסד and אמת occur in the Scriptures (together), they refer to someone having performed kind deeds, beyond the call of duty. Examples Genesis 49,29, when Yaakov asks his son Joseph to transport his remains to the land of Canaan and for him to be buried next to his wife Leah, although he had buried Joseph’s mother on the roadside where she had died. We find another example in Samuel II 15,20, where David excuses Gittai, from Gat, a gentile, from endangering himself while remaining in his company while he has to flee from his own son Avshalom.

ומכל האמת [my merits are diminished in consequence] OF ALL THE TRUTH — of the true fulfillment (אמיתת) of Your promises — because You have already kept all the promises You made me

החסדים, the loving kindness as expressed by promises. We have a parallel to this in Kings I 8,64. Seeing that You have performed for me both חסדים and אמת, although I have not yet redeemed my vow to establish an altar at Beyt El and to sacrifice to You there, I am now afraid in spite of the assurances You have given me. I am aware that You do not judge man according to his good intentions but according to his carrying out such intentions, and I have been remiss in this respect. We find in connection with Chizkiyah, King of Yehudah in Kings I 20,1 that when the prophet had told him: “you will die and not live,” that the king prayed to G’d and was granted an additional 15 years of life on earth. [he was given this extension as in his prayer he had enumerated his merits, although G’d justified the extension with reference to King David, Chizkiyah’s ancestor. Ed.]

ומכל האמת, the good You did for me on account of the merit of my father and grandfather. Seeing that You have already seen fit to treat me well beyond my deserts, I beg of You to continue to do so. Our regular prayers reflect this sentiment when we use the expression כגודל חסדך, “in accordance with the greatness of Your kindness.” Moses used this expression in Numbers 14,19 when praying for forgiveness of the people after the debacle with the spies.

כי במקלי עברתי את הירדן הזה, “for when I previously crossed this river Jordan, all I possessed was my walking staff.” I used to have a problem with the expression “this river Jordan,” seeing that Yaakov’s route was far distant from the river Jordan. The Jordan constitutes the eastern boundary of the land of Israel! My brother Rabbi Yehudah answered my question by pointing out that actually it was not Yaakov who crossed the Jordan but his staff, which by splitting the Jordan (as per tradition of our sages) enabled Yaakov to cross the river. [the meaning of the prefix ב in the word במקלי is not “with” but “by means of.”] The use of the word זה, “this,” for something not at hand, is not unique. We encounter it, for instance in the line כי זה משה האיש, “for this man Moses,” (Exodus 32,1) as a reference to Moses who, at that time, was on Mount Sinai, far from the camp of the Israelites.

כי במקלי, “for with my staff, etc.” this teaches that one must remember the days of starvation during the time one has prospered in order not to forget the fact that one is so much better off now than then. Solomon also taught us this in Kohelet 7,14: ביום טובה היה בטוב, וביום רעה ראה, “in a time of good fortune enjoy the good fortune; and in a time of misfortune reflect.” What Solomon meant was: “reflect on the time when you suffered misfortune now that you enjoy good fortune.”

Lest from the time You made me the promises, I have become tainted by sin... For the reason of diminished merits alone, Yaakov would not have feared, as there is no death without sin and no suffering without iniquity (Shabbos 55a). Thus Rashi brings also the reason of “tainted by sin.” And for the reason of “tainted by sin” alone, we might think that Yaakov still need not have feared, as his merits would outweigh his sins. Thus Rashi brings also the reason of diminished merits. Due to both of these reasons, Yaakov was frightened.

Jacob also wanted to mention separately two kinds of favours that G'd had done for him. The first was the kindness that He displayed for him by providing Jacob with an abundance of material wealth. The second was the fact that G'd had enabled Jacob to hold on to his gains and that G'd did not allow Laban to steal them from him forcibly and thereby displayed His truth. You must appreciate that there are occasions when G'd does show a person kindness whereas that person is subsequently deprived of his gains by outsiders exercising their free will. G'd in turn compensates the person who has suffered such a robbery. In such instances the person in question has experienced partial comfort only. He would have felt much better if he had not been robbed of what G'd had granted him in the first place. He will never forget that he had once become the victim of a robbery. He will imagine that if he had not been robbed he would now be still better off, not realising that G'd had only compensated him for what he had been robbed of. Secondly, the fact that G'd did not interfere with the robber will continue to bother such a person. He would have felt completely at ease had G'd restored to him the very goods the robber had taken. Jacob had experienced this latter kind of personal supervision by G'd as we know from 31,9, where Jacob described how G'd had saved his cattle from Laban and restored them to him. When Jacob spoke about "all of G'd's truth," this is the kind of interference by G'd which he had in mind.

כי במקלי FOR WITH MY STAFF — I had with me neither silver nor gold nor cattle — only this staff of mine. The Midrashic explanation is, that he had placed his staff in the Jordan and Jordan had divided for him to pass over.

“Making Your words come true...” Rashi is answering the question: Just because Hashem spoke [true promises], should Yaakov’s merits diminish? For Rashi said above, “My merits have diminished.” [Therefore Rashi explains, “You have kept all the promises.”] And why did Rashi say, “You have kept,” rather than, “You have done,” as the verse says? Because [the fulfillment of] what one says is not called עשייה, but שמירה. I.e., “keeping” it is the same as “doing” it.

The Midrashic explanation is: He placed his staff into the Jordan [River] and the Jordan split. According to this, [Yaakov is saying that] Hashem did him two good deeds: the splitting the Jordan, and the [dividing into] two camps. But according to the simple meaning, there is only one kindness.

מיד אחי מיד עשו FROM THE HAND OF MY BROTHER, FROM THE HAND OF ESAU — from the hand of my brother who does not treat me as a brother should, but as Esau, the wicked.

AND HE SMITE ME, THE MOTHER WITH THE CHILDREN. Commentators³⁴Mentioned in Ibn Ezra. The verb “smite” thus applies to the beginning and end of the sentence. have explained it as meaning. “And he smite me and smite the mother with the children.” There are many similar verses.

פן יבא והכני, because I am not worthy of all the loving kindness G’d has already shown me, (as I explained on verse 10)

Mother and children alike. Literally, “he will strike me, mother with sons” — i.e. he would deal Yaakov a devastating blow by killing his family, even if he himself escaped.

הצילני נא, "Save me please!" He used the word נא, a combined form of "please" and "now." He pleaded with G'd not to allow Esau to cause him any losses instead of letting him recoup his losses later on.

הצילני...אם על בנים. The word על in this line substitutes for the word עם, “with.” It is used in a similar sense in Hoseah 10,14 אם על בנים רטשה, “mothers and children were dashed to pieces.”

Mother together with children - if we are going to explain that he was worried that he [Esav] would attack mothers along with children, as it is said at the end of his prayer "and You said, etc and I set your seed etc" it is difficult to do so, given that God said to Avram, after Lot separated from him "and you seed will be like the dust of the earth, that is a person can count etc", since what would the "like the sand of the sea", an expression also present in the blessing, add? And more, what proof is there that he [Esav] wouldn't kill some of the children but the blessing could still happen on the rest of them? Rather, he was not worried about the children, since the children are "like him", exactly. He only worried about the wives, because they would protect them so that he [Esav] would not harm them, like the way of the mothers, and he was worried that he would kill the mothers in front of the children, and since "his wife is like his body" he said "strike me down." And this is also true given that he was warned not to take new wives, even after their deaths [of Rachel and Leah] since Lavan said "more children after theirs" since he was worried that their inheritance would be diminished due to children of another wife, and this is why he made a pact not to take other wives over his daughters, even after their deaths. And the proof to this is that the mitzvah of [not taking for wives] "a woman and her sister" applies only "during her lifetime" (Leviticus 18:1), and so obviously Lavan meant even after their deaths.

והכני אם על בנים, “and he will smite me, mother and children.” He means “mothers and their children.”

“From the hand of my brother who does not act towards me as a brother...” Here too, Rashi deduced this because מיד is written twice. And Yaakov would not use an expression of honor [about Eisov] when speaking to Hashem. (Maharshal)

gleichwohl rette mich vor meinem Bruder, der vielleicht ein Recht gegen mich hat, vor Esau, der seinem Charakter nach vielleicht eine Rache im Schilde führt, die ich doch vielleicht nicht verdient; rette mich um meiner Kinder willen, auf die du doch den Bau einer so großen Zukunft verheißen.

כי ירא אנכי אותו, “for I am afraid of him.” How could Yaakov still be afraid of Esau after all the assurances of support he had received from G–d? One sage answered that the answer to this question is found immediately in the words uttered by Yaakov himself. He refers to how he had set out on his journey to Lavan with nothing but his walking stick, whereas in the interval he had become very wealthy. When G–d had given him His assurances they had applied to himself alone. He had never included the people who now comprised his two camps, his family and the servants. As a result, while he did not fear for his person, he did fear for the lives of his wives and children, who had become an integral part of him.

מיד אחי, מיד עשו, from (the hand of) my brother, from (the hand of) Esau.” If Yaakov had only referred to Esau as “my brother,” it could have referred to any blood relative. If he had referred to Esau only by his name, it could have been understood as referring to anyone named Esau. [Yaakov had used the same caution when spelling out for whom he would serve Lavan for his future wife, i.e. “your younger daughter, Rachel.” (29,18) Ed.]

מיד אחי, מיד עשו, from my brother's hand, from Esau's hand. Rashi understands the word אחי as a plea that Esau should not treat him like a brother but rather as befitted the wicked Esau. According to this explanation Jacob should only have said מיד אחי עשו, and we would have understood the Torah's meaning from the otherwise superfluous "my brother," seeing that Esau was his only brother.

Auf diesen Angstschrei wird Jakob keine Antwort; sie wird ihm erst durch ein Erlebnis, dem er mit allem diesem entgegenging.

פן יבא והכני אם על בנים, “lest he come and smite me both mother and children.” Yaakov implied that if this were to happen, G-d forbid, how could the promises G-d had made to him that his children would develop into numerous tribes (28,13) come true. A different exegesis of this phrase: Yaakov was not at all concerned about being killed himself because he had G-d’s assurances. He was only concerned about the lives of his wives and children, concerning whom he did not have G-d’s assurance. G-d had only promised him personally that He would bring him safely back to his home (even though it might entail many detours, i.e. בכל אשר תלך), “wherever you will go” (28,15). This is why he specifically spelled this out with the words: אם על בנים, “mother and children.” Use of the preposition על in the sense of “with,” also occurs in Numbers 28,10: על עולת התמיד, “with the daily burnt offering,” as well as in Numbers 19,5: על פרשה ישרף, “it is to be burned with its dung.”

Mothers and children together - There are two in the tradition, this one and "mother and children dashed." This is about Sanheriv, the king of Ashur, whi said to destroy Israel, and then Esav who came to make war against Yaakov, and so "do not take mother and children alike" is a hint regarding exile.

I believe therefore that the correct meaning is that Jacob prayed and addressed himself to the fact that there were two facets to Esau's character. On the one hand Esau was a son of Isaac and Isaac's merits would assist him. On the other hand, he was a person in his own right, a very powerful person at that; it would require great strength to be saved from attack by such a person. Jacob therefore prayed to G'd that Isaac's merit should not now assist him; this is what he meant by "save me please from the hands of my brother," i.e. although he is my brother. Concerning Esau's being a powerful adversary in his own right, Jacob prayed "please save me from Esau!"

Wie später in den Galuthjahrhunderten דורן ותפלה, nächst dem Hülferuf zu Gott in Beschwichtigung durch Spenden von seiner Habe das Jakobsvolk seine Rettung Esau gegenüber zu suchen hatte, also flüchtet schon der Stammvater in gleicher Lage zu dem gleichen Mittel. —

Jacob also had in mind that if Esau were to use the fact that he was his brother as a trick to attack him after feigning brotherliness, G'd should save him from such machinations. He also needed G'd's help, however, if Esau proclaimed his hostility openly.

Jacob also drew G'd's attention to the enormity of Esau's crime if he were to try and murder his own brother, מיד אחי; surely the mere thought of committing such a heinous crime should provide sufficient excuse for G'd to humble Esau; on the other hand, Esau's wickedness (without considering the fact that in this case he set out to murder a brother) was sufficient to warrant G'd's intervention on behalf of Jacob.

היטב איטיב I WILL SURELY DO [THEE] GOOD — The use of two words denoting “doing good” is intended to signify: היטב doing good to thee on account of your own merits, איטיב I will also do good to thee on account of your father’s merits (Genesis Rabbah 76:7).

AND THOU SAIDST: I WILL SURELY DO THEE GOOD. Even though he was afraid lest the sin cause him to lose that which he was promised, Jacob said: “You have done great kindnesses for me even though I was unworthy of them. Certainly You will do for me this undeserved kindness which You have promised me, namely, that You will bestow good upon me and increase my seed. My sin should not withhold from me the good You have promised me, for in the beginning I was also unworthy of it had You marked against me mine iniquities.³⁵See Psalms 130:3. And You did not promise it to me on account of my deeds, but only out of Your abundant mercies.”
And some commentators say³⁶Ibn Ezra. Thus Jacob’s fear was not lest his sin cause him to lose that which he was promised, but because he did not know, etc., as explained in the text. that Jacob had compassion for his children and household lest Esau smite them, because he did not know whether the promise, And thy seed shall be as the dust of the earth,³⁷Above, 28:14. applied to these or to others, it being possible that he himself would escape and have additional children. But in my opinion this is not correct, for if this was his thought, how did he say in his prayer, And Thou saidst: I will surely do thee good and make thy seed as the sand of the sea? Moreover, it was told to him in Beth-el, And behold, I am with thee, and will keep thee whithersoever thou goest, and I will bring thee back into this land.²⁶Above, 28:15. If his children were to fall before his brother’s sword, this promise would not be fulfilled, and it is to this promise that Jacob alluded when he said, And Thou saidst: I will surely do thee good. Similarly with the promise, And I will do thee good:²⁸Verse 10 here. all this Jacob said on the basis of it having been said to him, And I will be with thee.²⁷Ibid., 31:3. But all his misgivings were on account of the fear of sin, for it is the way of the righteous to be always fearful. Thus Jacob was fearful that perhaps even after he left Haran, he sinned by entering into a covenant with Laban, who was an idol-worshipper, or in some other matter, and Who can discern errors?³⁸Psalms 19:13.

ואתה אמרת היטב איטיב עמך; even though You are under no obligation to keep the promise You have made to me seeing that I am not worthy of it, do it for the sake of Your Holy Name which obligates You to keep Your promises (as Moses argued when he reasoned with You not to destroy Israel in spite of their having sinned with the golden calf. His argument had been: “Why should the impression be created that You are unable to keep promises You have made?”) The argument used by Moses he used more than once when he repeated it after the sin of the spies (Numbers 14,16)

Like the sands of the sea. In favorable times the Israelites are likened to the stars and in bad times they are trampled like the dust. But in intermediate times they are like the sand of the shore, which the waves continually threaten to overwhelm, but upon which they are broken instead.

ואתה אמרת היטב איטיב עמך, if what I am afraid of were to happen this would be the reverse of Your promise to me. How can I watch the destruction of my family?

ואתה אמרת, Yaakov’s formulation is reminiscent of that of David in Psalms 119,49 “remember Your word to Your servant through which You have given me hope.”

ואתה אמרת היטיב איטיב עמך, ”and You have said: “I will keep on doing good with you.” Nachmanides explains that although Yaakov was afraid that sins he might have committed would prevent G’d from making good on His promises to him, he refers to very generous kind deeds G’d had already performed, implying that he had not been worthy of these favours. He argues that if G’d had seen fit to perform favours for him which He had not promised, He will most certainly perform those which he had promised him, regardless of any sins he might have become guilty of inadvertently in the meantime. Some commentators claim that Yaakov was concerned as a loving father that Esau should not be allowed to harm members of his family, as it was possible that he would stage a hit and run raid, and only he, Yaakov, would escape due to G’d’s protection of him as promised. In such an event, G’d could still fulfill His promise by enabling Yaakov to start a new family and to raise children. This scenario, as something which Yaakov had in mind with his words here, is not plausible, as if this was what Yaakov had in mind he could not have formulated his prayer with the words “and You yourself have said, etc.,” a reference to people whose very life he attributed to G’d having already fulfilled part of His promise. Furthermore, part of G’d’s promise during the dream of the ladder had been that He would protect Yaakov on all his journeys etc. If his family would become victims of Esau’s vengeful attack, how could this promise still come true? We must attribute Yaakov’s fear as worry only about any sins committed since the promise of G’d had been received as a cause of invalidating such a promise.

היטיב on account of your merits, and איטיב on account of your fathers’ merits. Although the Torah speaks in the language of man, [thus a double verb need not be expounded,] here it is clear that it is to be expounded. For it should have said היטב תיטב, in second person, like העניק תעניק (Devarim 15:14). This is preferable to Re’m’s explanation, that whenever an exposition can be made it should be made. You might ask: Rashi explained on v. 11 that Yaakov said, “My merits have diminished.” [Why did he pray here on account of his own merits?] The answer is: He surely was not praying here on account of his merits, but on account of his fathers’ merits. That is why Rashi adds, “I will do good on account of your fathers’ merits.”

ושמתי את זרעך כחול הים AND I WILL MAKE THY SEED AS THE SAND OF THE SEA — Where, indeed, did God promise him this? Did he not promise him only (Genesis 28:14) “And thy seed shall be as the dust of the earth"? But the explanation is that He had at the same time promised him (Genesis 28:15) “for I will not leave thee until I have done that which I have spoken about thee”, and to Abraham he had promised (Genesis 22:17) “and I will greatly multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven and as the sand which is upon the seashore”.

ושמתי את זרעך, even if only my children will be killed this will be the opposite of what You promised. It behooves You to let them survive for the sake of Your great name, even if I myself do not deserve to survive. We use this kind of argument in our prayers when we say (based on Jeremiah 14,7) אם עונינו ענו בנו עשה למען שמך, “if our sins testify against us, (save us) for the sake of Your name!”

היטב אטיב עמך, it is the custom for Scripture to write the verb in the infinitive mode together with the appropriate mode of the verb in order to reinforce what the verb expresses. According to Bereshit Rabbah 76,7 the word היטב refers to G’d’s support for Yaakov based on his merits, whereas the word איטיב refers to G’d’s support for him based on the merit of his father and grandfather.

Until I have done. Also this verse shows that, “Until I have done that which I have spoken for you,” refers to [what Hashem spoke to] Avraham, as Rashi explained on v. 28:15. Otherwise, the difficulty [remains]: Hashem never said this to Yaakov.

כחול הים, an inaccuracy, as in the verse Yaakov referred to G’d had promised that his descendents would be as numerous as the “dust of the earth,” not like the sand on the beaches of the sea. (28,14) The change in syntax is irrelevant, as we explained repeatedly that when the Torah repeats the same theme with different words, the reason is not to alert the reader to an additional dimension of the message, but only to stress the message, to draw attention to its importance.

הבא בידו AND TOOK OF THAT WHICH CAME TO HIS HAND (literally, in his hand) — in his possession, similar to (Numbers 21:26) “and he had taken all his land out of his possession (מידו).” A Midrashic explanation is: מן הבא בידו — precious stones and jewels which a person ties up in a package and carries in his hand. Another explanation is: מן הבא בידו THAT WHICH A MAN MAY TAKE INTO HIS OWN POSSESSION — of that which no longer has a sacred character — for he had set aside the tithe, just as you read (28:22) “[And Jacob vowed] … I will surely give the tenth unto Thee”. Only afterwards did he take the present of what was left after the tithe had been set aside, and this was that which he might rightly take into his own possession.

OF THAT WHICH HE HAD WITH HIM A PRESENT. Scripture states that he composed a gift out of that which he had since his wealth consisted of flocks and herds, and it was from them that Jacob sent a gift, for he was en-route and he had no opportunity to send him vessels of silver, and vessels of gold… and precious things.³⁹Above, 24:53.

וילן, he remained standing all night waiting for a response to his prayer. While waiting he prepared the gift he was going to send to Esau in the morning. The Torah describes this gift in detail a little later on in its narrative, commencing with the words עזים מאתים.

מן הבא בידו, “from something he had acquired.” The gift he prepared was not something he had to buy, but it came out of his own possessions, Seeing that he was not near any town, he did not have time to look for something especially suited as a gift. He took from the items which represented his wealth.

מן הבא בידו, “from that which had come into his hand, etc.” The Torah means “from that which he had acquired rightfully, as opposed to things which are acquired by illegal means. We have a verse in Malachi 1,13 specifically targeting gifts (offerings to G’d) which the owner had not acquired honestly. “and you bring (as a gift) the stolen or the lame. Would I accept it from you- said the Lord?”

In his possession. There is a question [on the first explanation]: Why does it need to say בידו? [Obviously, he took only from what was his!] Thus Rashi brings the Midrashic explanation that it refers to jewels. But there is a question on this: Why does it not mention [the type of jewel] by name, [as it does with the animals]? Therefore Rashi brings the alternate explanation, about tithes. But this explanation alone does not suffice, because why did it say, “Which comes into his hand”? The non-sacred was already in his hand, [as he made it so by tithing it]. That is why Rashi presents all the explanations. (Maharshal)

מנחה לעשו אחיו, “as a gift for his brother Esau.” He meant to be conciliatory regardless of Esau’s intentions concerning him.

בידו, which were his. The word occurs in this sense also in 39,4 where Potiphar transfers all his belongings to the care of Joseph. The angel with whom Yaakov wrestled, and who represented the answer to his prayer, did not arrive until after Yaakov had completed preparing his gift for Esau. The reason for this delay was in order to teach us that we must not entrust our affairs to the intervention of G’d on our behalf until after we have exhausted natural means of achieving our purpose (legally, of course). Even the greatest tzaddik must not entrust his needs to G’d while attending to matters such as Torah study, for instance, instead of his duties to insure his own and his family’s needs. These include prayer, appeasement of adversaries by gifts or lip-service, and in the final analysis physical resistance, war. In all one’s endeavours one must, of course, put one’s trust in G’d, hoping that He will approve of one’s efforts and grant one success.

עזים מאתים ותישים עשרים TWO HUNDRED SHE GOATS AND TWENTY HE GOATS — Two hundred she goats have need of twenty he goats, and so too in the case of all the various species the males were in number according to the need of the females. In Genesis Rabbah 76:7 an inference is made from here as regards the minimum period imperative for the marital duty imposed by the Torah - [for] the men of leisure, every day; [for] the laborers, twice a week; [for] the donkey drivers, once a week; [for] the camel drivers, once in thirty days, [for] the sailors, once in six months. I am unable however to show exactly how this inference is arrived at. But it appears to me that we may learn from here at least that this period is not the same for every person, but that it depends upon the amount of labor imposed upon him by his occupation. As we have found here that ten she goats were given to each he goat, and so [too] to each ram; [as] since they are free from work, their way is to be frequently involved in sexual relations and to impregnate ten females - and once an animal becomes pregnant, it does not accept a male. And [concerning] the bulls that engage in work, it only gave four females to the male; and to the donkey who goes on long journeys, [it gave] two females to the male; and to the camels that go on [even] longer journeys, [it gave] one female to the male.

עזים מאחים, two hundred goats, etc. I have heard from my grandfather of blessed memory that Jacob intended that the total number of animals he sent as a gift to Esau should correspond to the numeriacl value of the letters in the word שעיר (580). Therefore he sent a total of 440 sheep and goats, thirty camels plus a young one each, i.e. a total of 60 camels. Add to this the forty cows and ten bulls, the twenty she-asses and ten donkeys, and you have a total of 580. The word שעיר symbolises Esau's power; the animals Jacob sent him as a gift were supposed to neutralise that power.

עזים מאתים, Yaakov the shepherd knew precisely how many male animals were required to service a flock of female animals to achieve the best results. Sheep and goats have similar requirements in this respect.

Once an animal has become pregnant it does not accept the male. Rashi is saying that it is the nature of an animal to mate as often as enjoyment calls for and free time permits. Since he-goats and rams are free all day, Yaakov gave them ten females each. This enabled them to fulfill their desire and maximize offspring for the owner. And so Yaakov gave each [type of male animal] according to its free time. This raises a question: Although he-goats and rams are free all day, they do not know that their mating with many females benefits the owner. Perhaps one male will fulfill its desire with one female, mating with it repeatedly? To this Rashi answers: “Once an animal has become pregnant...” This forces the male to separate from her and go to a second and a third, etc. Re’m explained differently; the reader may decide. See Kesubos 62a, which says that free time serves as the determining factor. (Nachalas Yaakov)

ויפן וירד משה מן ההר. We learn from this word ויפן, he turned around, that Moses descended while facing the cloud just as he had done when ascending the mountain. In other words, just as he had ascended facing the cloud, he now descended keeping his face toward the cloud, walking backwards. The High Priest, on the Day of Atonement, emulated this when withdrawing from the Holy of Holies by walking backwards after having offered the incense before the lid of the Holy Ark, the kapporet, as well as some of the blood of the two offerings on behalf of the people as well as sprinkling some on the dividing curtain. We have a similar verse in Chronicles II 1,13 describing Solomon’s approach to the altar that was standing in Givon at that time. Even though one could say that the words ויבא שלמה לבמה אשר בגבעון ירושלים mean: “Solomon returned from the altar in Givon to Jerusalem,” [seeing Givon at that time was certainly not part of Jerusalem Ed.] the correct interpretation is that he withdrew in the same way as he had approached. The point of all this was to conform to the principle of שויתי ה' לנגדי תמיד, “I am keeping Hashem in front of Me at all times.” (Psalms 16,8) One does not turn one’s back on G’d. The Mishnah, Yuma 52 states: “in the manner he had entered he also exited.” This is also the way Leviticus 16,24 describes this, writing: “he exited and completed the ritual of his own burnt offering as well as that of the people.” These words have been interpreted by our sages to mean that the word לבמה “to the altar,” must also be read as מבמה.”from the altar,” when he was headed back to Jerusalem (Yuma 53). There is a precedent for this in Numbers 31,21, where the words הבאים למלחמה, must also mean הבאים מן המלחמה, “the ones who were returning from the war.” How do we know that indeed the Shechinah was on the mountain at the time Moses descended? In Deuteronomy 9,15 where Moses refers to his descent from the mountain, he adds the words: “and the mountain was burning in fire while the two tablets of the covenant were on my hands.” We learn from all of this that the student, when taking leave of his teacher, walks backwards until the face of his teacher is no longer directly visible to him. (Yuma 53) This is also the reason why, at the end of the principal prayer the amidah, we step three steps backwards, as if to take leave of the G’d Whom we had faced and addressed before. (Shulchan Aruch Orach Chayim section 123).

גמלים מיניקות MILCH CAMELS שלשים THIRTY, ובניהם means AND THEIR COLTS with them — A Midrashic explanation of ובניהם is that it is the same as וּבַנָּאֵיהֶם their builders (those that build them up) i.e., one male for each female. Because, however, it (the camel) is chaste in its ways Scripture does not state this plainly (Genesis Rabbah 76:7) but employs a term from which it may be inferred.

ובניהם, according to the plain meaning the males which the camels were suckling. When there are both females and males, the Torah does not mention the females separately.

גמלים מיניקות, we did not know why Yaakov sent along young camels that were so tender that they still depended on mothers’ milk. (according to the words of the author Yaakov also sent such young male calves and male donkeys with their mother animals.) ובניהם together with their young there were a total of 30 camels. The number of animals in each herd was proportionate to the respective size of Yaakov’s total herds of that category of animal. Seeing that he owned relatively few camels, his gift of camels represented a certain percentage of the total number of camels he owned. The reason why the Torah bothered to give us the details of the gift Yaakov sent to his brother was to show us that he sent a substantial gift, and to teach us that if we ever need to atone for having deeply hurt someone and to hope that he will forgive us, it is appropriate to demonstrate our contriteness not so much with words as with a gift of substantial proportions. Yaakov enhanced the impression his gift made upon Esau by leaving a good amount of space between each of the flocks, making Esau feel repeatedly that he had already seen the whole gift, only to find that more was to follow. Bereshit Rabbah 76,8 also addresses the question of the space between the herds which Yaakov insisted the messengers must allow for. According to the Midrash he wanted Esau to feast his eyes on the size of the gift. When one part of the gift had been received and he thought that he had seen it all, another messenger with another herd would appear and request that Esau accept his herd as a gift from Yaakov.

גמלים מיניקות, “camels with their young.” The males of the species were not mentioned here. Some people claim that the word גמל, camel, is the description for both the male and the female of the species. We would then assume that there were 10 adult males, 10 adult females, and their 10 female young. The male/female ratio of the camels would then correspond to the male/female ratio of the donkeys.

And their young were with them... Rashi is saying that there were also thirty young ones. Otherwise, why would it include them all in the same number, when the verse is coming to describe how large the gift was? The young are not significant when [included] with their mothers! Perforce, the verse should be rearranged to read: גמלים מניקות שלשים ובניהם.

גמלים מיניקות, “female camels;”

ועירים means MALE ASSES.

The Midrashic explanation... one male per female... Accordingly, שלשים is rightly written after בניהם, for it indicates that there were thirty altogether. The numbers of the males and of the females were not stated explicitly because camels are discreet in mating.

ובניהם, and their masculine young. The total number of camels was 30. How is this number arrived at? There were twenty female camels and 10 male camels. [Each mother animal had a female young with her. Ed.] The ratio was similar to that of the male and female donkeys which also totaled 30. After having read the details of the latter, we understand what is meant about the camels. According to Rashi, however, there were 30 male camels plus thirty female camels.

And their young were with them... This [first explanation] is saying that there were also thirty young ones. Question: If so, why does it not say שלשים also for the young, like it does for the nursing camels? Thus Rashi brings the Midrashic explanation, that they were thirty altogether. And so that we will not ask, “If so, why does the verse not state the numbers of the males and of the females?” Therefore Rashi explains, “Since it is discreet in mating...” And in fact there were fifteen males and fifteen females. (Maharshal)

עדר עדר לבדו EVERY DROVE BY ITSELF — each species forming a drove by itself.

AND PUT A SPACE BETWEEN DROVE AND DROVE. I.e., in order to satisfy the covetous eye of that wicked man and to amaze him by the size of the gift. In Bereshith Rabbah⁴⁰75:13. the Rabbis express the opinion that there is an allusion to the future in this matter: “Jacob said before the Holy One, blessed be He, ‘O Master of the universe! If troubles will come upon my children, do not bring them one after another, but allow them intervals from their troubles.’” On the basis of this verse, the Rabbis thus hinted that the tributes and taxes which the children of Esau will collect from Jacob’s seed will have intervals and cessations between one another.

וריוח תשימו, a device to make each gift appear as a sign of Yaakov’s respect. When someone receives a number of gifts at intervals he appreciates them all the more.

עדר עדר לבדו. In order for Esau to realise that each species of animals had the appropriate number of males with it to ensure that these herds would continue to develop without hindrance. This is what he meant when he urged Esau קח נא את ברכתי, “please accept my blessing” (33,11) He meant that his gift was designed to be an ongoing blessing for his brother.

ויתן, he set

ורווח תשימו בין עדר לעדר, “and place some distance between one herd of animals and the next.” This measure was also to serve as a model for the behaviour of Jews in the future; Yaakov was asking G’d that if the need would arise to chastise the Jewish people, the decrees should not all be carried out at the same time, but that G’d should allow the people to recover from one disaster before having to contend with the next one. Some commentators understand the words ורווח תשימו as ensuring that different species of animals were not to mix with one another.

A distance of one day or less... [Rashi knows that they were] not immediately ahead of Yaakov, because it is written in v. 22: “The present passed on ahead of him, but he spent the night in the camp.” If they were just a short way from Yaakov, they could have all spent the night together. And they were not more than a day’s distance ahead, because Yaakov gave Eisov the present on the same day [after daybreak], as is evident from the coming verses.

עברו לפני PASS ON BEFORE ME, a day’s journey or less and I shall follow you).

וריוח תשימו בין עדר לעדר, to prevent the animals form one herd to jump into the adjoining herd, so that anyone seeing this gift would not appreciate its quality and scope.

ורוח, according to Bereshit Rabbah the רוח mentioned here was Yaakov’s prayer to G’d that if and when his descendants would be punished by G’d for collective wrongdoing, such punishments would be meted out at intervals and not all at once, to give the people a chance to recover from the previous disaster’s impact.

And I will follow behind you. [Rashi knows this] because Yaakov told them to say to Eisov, “And see, he himself is also behind us.” Thus, Yaakov must have said it to them, too: “Pass on ahead of me and I will follow behind you.”

ורוח תשימו AND PUT A SPACE — one drove before the other at a distance as far as the eye can see, in order to satisfy the eye (the cupidity) of that wicked man and to amaze him by the size of the gift (Genesis Rabbah 76:8).

One herd was ahead of the other... Rashi is explaining that they were herd behind herd. [Rashi knows this] because if they were lined up alongside each other, how could they be described [in the coming verses as] first, second and third? They would all be “first.”

למי אתה means TO WHOM DO YOU BELONG, implying who has sent thee? The Targum should be דמאן את “of whom are you” and not למאן את as some editions have.

למי אתה, the word עבד is implied, i.e. Esau would ask: “whose servant are you?”

ויצו את הראשון לאמור, He instructed the first one (messenger) to say, etc. The apparently superfluous word לאמו was that even if Esau were not to phrase his enquiry in exactly the words Jacob assumed he would, he would no doubt use words to that effect.

ויצו, for each species of animal formed a herd by itself supervised by a separate servant. Yaakov instructed the one walking with the first herd to reply to Esau’s enquiry in the manner a servant answers his master.

כי יפגשך עשו אחי, “when Esau my brother will encounter you,“ My father of sainted memory, the ר'אש, commented on this that Yaakov instructed his messengers not to open a conversation with Esau, but only to reply to him if he engaged them in conversation first. If Esau did not begin a conversation they should simply proceed on their way to Esau’s home.

To whom is this gift being sent... I.e., the second למי conveys [“to whom”, which is] its primary meaning. But למי אתה does not convey its primary meaning, which would be: “To whom are you bringing it.” [Rashi knows this] because it says afterward, “You should say, ‘They belong to your servant, Yaakov.’” This is answering Eisov’s first question first, as Rashi explains there. But if the first למי conveyed its simple meaning, then it should say afterward, “To my master, Eisov” — for that would be the answer to Eisov’s [first] question.

I will appease him. He told them to relate to Eisov how ashamed he was about the injustice he had done him and to request forgiveness on his behalf.

ולמי אלה לפניך means and these which are before you whose are they; i.e. to whom is this present being sent? The letter ל is used as a prefix in place of של “belonging to”; e.g., (31:43) “and all that thou seest is mine (לי)” i.e. belongs to me; (Psalms 24:1) “The earth is the Lord’s (לה') and the fullness thereof” i.e. belongs to the Lord.

יפגשך, the letter ג with the vowel kametz is a long drawn out vowel and is weak, does not have a dagesh.

Jacob may also have used the word לאמור to tell his messengers to use exactly this formula even if they would not be asked directly by Esau but by some intermediary. He added the word ושאלך, "and if he will ask you," to indicate that such a question might be addressed to the messenger second hand, not by Esau himself.

אלה לפניך, as if it said אלה אשר לפניך, “these which preceded you?”

ואמרת לעבדך ליעקב THEN SHALT THOU SAY THEY ARE THY SERVANT JACOB’S — You shall answer the first question first and the last question last, saying :”In reply to what you have asked”, “Whose art thou?”, “I belong to thy servant Jacob” — and it should be rendered in the Targum דעבדך דיעקב belonging to your servant, belonging to Jacob” —and in reply to what you have asked, “And whose are these before thee?” “It is a present sent etc.”

מנחה, we explained this term in connection with Genesis 4,3.

ואמרת: "לעבדך ליעקב". He instructed his shepherds not to give the impression that they knew Esau was on the way in their direction and that they had been sent to him. The phrasing Yaakov instructed his messengers to use was meant to give the impression that Yaakov had no knowledge that Esau was marching toward him with hostile intentions. The messenger should give the impression that he had been sent by Yaakov to Seir where Esau lived, with a gift for him.

ואמרת לעבדך ליעקב, you will say: "to your servant, to Jacob." This means that the appropriate answer to the question: "who do you belong to?" would be: "to your servant Jacob;" the appropriate reply to the question: "where are you headed for?" is "to bring a gift which has been despatched." The appropriate answer to the question: "who is the gift for?" is "for my lord, for Esau."

Referring to Yaakov. [How does Rashi know this? Because] it is written, “He commanded the first one... and to all who followed after....” If so, the last one also said, “He is also behind us” — although there was no [group] behind him. Perforce, it referred to Yaakov. Consequently, all [the groups must have meant] the same. [You might ask: If so,] why does it then say, “You should also say, ‘See, your servant Yaakov is behind us”? [This is repetitious, as] all the servants already said this! The answer is: Yaakov was saying to them as follows. Regarding what I commanded you to say to Eisov — “And see, he is also behind us” — do not say it vaguely, by concealing my name. Rather, say it expressly, like this: “See, your servant Yaakov is behind us.” I.e., mention to him [also my] servility.

(19-21) Einen ganz besonderen Wert legt Jakob darauf, dass jeder Herdenführer bei Esau die Erwartung anrege, dass er nun sogleich Jakob begegnen werde, und ihm dann statt Jakob erst wieder ein Geschenk entgegentrete. Indem so wiederholt der Zorn zum Ausbruch sich sammeln durfte, und dann statt Gelegenheit zum Ausbruch eine neue Beschwichtigung finde, hoffte er — gewiss mit tief psychologischem Blicke — am sichersten eine allmählige Kühlung und Besänftigung erwarten zu dürfen.

?למי אתה, “Who do you belong to?” ואמרת: ״לעבדך וגו׳״, “you will say: ‘to your servant, etc.” Yaakov ordered his servants, the ones who accompanied the herds of gifts, to answer each question in the order in which it had been asked. To the question of: “who do these herds belong to?” the answer was to be: “they belong to your servant Yaakov and are a gift for my lord Esau.” In response to the question: ולמי אלה לפניך, “and to whom do these animals in front of you belong?” They were all to answer: “and he (Yaakov) is also following a short distance behind us.”

והנה גם הוא AND, BEHOLD, ALSO HE IS BEHIND US — The word “he” refers to Jacob.

כדבר הזה תדברון אל עשו, he instructed each one what to reply to Esau’s enquiry. He should simply mention that he belonged to the other herds following him, all of them being Yaakov’s a gift for his older brother Esau.

ויצו...במצאכם, the letter מ has the vowel cholem, and the letter צ has the vowel patach in order to lengthen the letter א. If not for this consideration the letter מ would have required the vowel chataf kametz (short) and the letter צ would have required a semi vowel sheva, as in Joshua 8,8 בתפשכם את העיר, “when you seize the city.”

אכפרה פניו I WILL APPEASE HIM — I will remove his anger. Similarly, (Isaiah 28:18) "and your covenant with death shall be annulled (וכפר)”; (Isaiah 47:11) “Thou shalt not be able to put it away (וכפרה”. I am of the opinion that wherever the verb כפר is used in association with iniquity and sin and in association with anger (פנים), it always signifies wiping away, removing. It is an Aramaic expression occurring frequently in the Talmud: “He wiped his hand off (כפר ידיה)”, and (Gittin 56a) ‘‘he wants to wipe (לכפורי) his hands off on this man” (i.e. he desires to put the responsibility upon me). In Biblical Hebrew, also, the bowls of the Sanctuary are called, (Ezra 1:10) "כפורי of gold” — and they are so called because the priest wiped his hands on them — on the rim of the bowl (Zevachim 93b).

‘ACHAPRAH’ (I WILL APPEASE) HIM WITH THE PRESENT. I.e., “I will dissipate his anger.” Similarly: ‘Vechupar’ (and annulled shall be) your covenant with death;⁴¹Isaiah 28:18. Thou shalt not be able ‘kaprah’ (to put it away).⁴²Ibid., 47:11. I am of the opinion that whenever the word kaparah is used in association with iniquity and sin and in association with the word panim (anger), it always signifies erasing and removing. It is an Aramaic expression occurring frequently in the Talmud: “He wished to wipe his hands on that man.”⁴³Gittin 56a. In Biblical Hebrew, also, the bowls in the Sanctuary are called ‘Kipurei’ of gold⁴⁴Ezra 1:10. because the priest wiped his hand on them, that is, on the rims of the bowl. These are the words of our Rabbi Shlomo [Rashi]. And so also did Onkelos translate: “I will calm his anger.” If so, the explanation of the verse will [not] be that Jacob said these words, but that Jacob thought to himself, “I will appease him.” It is Scripture that tells us this [but it is not part of Jacob’s instructions to his messengers], for it would have been improper for the messengers to do so and thereby remind Esau of his antagonism towards Jacob. And so did Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra explain it.
But it does not appear to me to be correct that Scripture should find it necessary to tell us Jacob’s thought at this time when it is a well known matter pertaining to all who send presents. Besides, if it were so, Scripture should have mentioned this originally [in connection with the first drove, in Verse 19] , And, behold, he is also behind us, for he thought, “I will appease him with the present,” for now [when commanding the leaders of the second and third droves] he did not add to that instruction [which he gave the leader of the first drove].
However, the correct interpretation is that now Jacob additionally explained to them that they should say in a respectful manner, Behold, he is also behind us, that is to say, “Behold, your servant Jacob is also behind us, and he has sent us before him in order to give a ransom for his life,⁴⁵Exodus 30:12. using this present as a means of seeing your honor’s face, just as servants present their ransom when they are given permission to see the king’s face. And afterward I will see his face, for perhaps he will accept me and honor me by permitting me to be among those who see the king’s face.”⁴⁶Esther 1:14. This was a way of expressing Esau’s exalted status and was due to Jacob’s fear of him. The expression achaprah panav is then being used as it is used in the verse, The wrath of a king is as messengers of death; but a wise man ‘yechaprenah,’⁴⁷Proverbs 16:14. meaning he will give ransom to allay the wrath. And the connotation of “wiping away” attached to forgiveness is not valid in the Sacred Language but rather in the Aramaic tongue. Similarly, ‘kipurei’ of gold⁴⁴Ezra 1:10. is the Babylonian name for bowls, for the word kaparah is never used in association with “sin,” meaning “wipe away,” but instead Scripture says: ‘lechapeir’ (to make atonement) for your souls;⁴⁸Exodus 30:15. ‘lechapeir’ (to make atonement) for him, and he shall be forgiven,⁴⁹Numbers 15:28. i.e., for his soul. And Scripture also says: ‘achaprah’ (I shall make atonement) for your sin.⁵⁰Exodus 32:30. All of these are related to the expression, Then shall they give every man ‘kopher’ for his soul,⁴⁵Exodus 30:12. which means a ransom.

כי אמר אכפרה פניו, this is not what Yaakov said but what he thought in his heart. This line does not belong to the instructions he had given to his emisssaries.

ואמרתם גם הנה עבדך יעקב אחרינו, he told each of them to reply with the same words in addition to the words that each one had been instructed to answer individually. The purpose behind these detailed instructions was to convince Esau that Yaakov was indeed not far behind on his way to Seir the destination of these gifts which he had sent ahead of him.

ואמרתם גם הנה עבדך יעקב אחרנו, you will say: "your servant Jacob is also following behind us." The messengers explained why Jacob neither preceded nor accompanied them. The reason was simply that Jacob wanted to appease Esau's anger so that the latter would receive him in a good frame of mind.

ואמרתם, even though this instruction had already been given both collectively and individually, he repeated it again until they would remember to add “your servant Yaakov is following behind us.” Esau was to have the impression that Yaakov followed these shepherds, his servants, on his way to Seir in order to present himself to him.

כי אמר: אכפרה פניו, “for he had said: ”I want to gain his goodwill.” Rashi understands this as an attempt to mollify Esau’s anger. Whenever the word כפרה occurs in connection with sin, either intentional or inadvertent, this is its primary meaning. Nachmanides comments that if we accept Rashi’s explanation the words are not words spoken by Yaakov at all, but are the Torah’s report of what motivated Yaakov’s entire conduct in offering a gift to his brother. Why would the Torah spell out Yaakov’s thoughts, when we had already read in verse 15 what was the reason for his preparing this gift. Not only that; most people who send gifts ahead of themselves do so for precisely the same reason, namely to put the recipient in a good mood so that they can be certain of a friendly reception. Another difficulty with Rashi’s comment raised by Nachmanides is that this consideration by Yaakov should have appeared at the beginning of this paragraph. Moreover, what possible reason is there for the Torah to quote the messengers as saying והנה גם הוא אחרינו, ”and lo he is also behind us?” Surely, this is not part of Yaakov’s thoughts at that time! For these various reasons Nachmanides explains that Yaakov now added as an afterthought that the messengers should add the words: “here he is also behind us,” as a polite way of explaining that the gift was indeed something preparatory to Yaakov’s personal arrival, designed to ensure that Esau would grant him an audience. Yaakov’s entire behaviour reflects Proverbs 16,14: ואיש חכם יכפרנה, “a wise man can appease it.” (the king’s anger)

אכפרה פניו: Da פנים, von פנה, wenden, sich wenden, eine Richtung irgendwo hin nehmen, eigentlich allgemein: die Wendungen, die Richtungen bedeutet, die jemand in Beziehung zu einem Gegenstande zu nehmen im Begriffe ist, und davon erst der Begriff פנים, Angesicht, als desjenigen Körperteils stammt, in dessen Stellung, Bewegung und Blick diese Beziehungen ihren Ausdruck finden, so ist פנים der Ausdruck sowohl für die freundliche als unfreundliche Gesinnung. Es heißt ebenso: באור פני מלך חיים (Ps. 34, 17) פני ד׳ בעושי רע :als (ProRaw Hirsch on Genesis 32: 16, 15) . אכפרה פניו heißt daher eigentlich: ich möchte die in ihm gegen mich vorhandene Gesinnung beschwichtigen. (כפר siehe zu Kap.6, 19.)

ואמרתם גם הנה עבדך יעקב אחרינו, you are to say: “your servant Yaakov is also not far behind us.” He made them repeat this answer twice. He told his servants that when they would see Esau they should not be afraid to address him in such a manner, i.e. by referring to their own master as Esau’s servant. In the event Esau would ask them why Yaakov did not precede them in order to welcome him, as befits a younger brother when he meets his older brother, you will say: etc.: he reasoned that he wanted Esau to be in a good frame of mind concerning him before actually setting eyes on him.” They were to reveal that Yaakov had felt the need to appease his older brother by means of the gift he had sent ahead of himself. He hoped that in view of this substantial gift Esau would be good tempered when they came face to face after so many years. These latter words were not spoken by the servants of Yaakov who walked with the animals, but are to be understood as editorial comment by the author of the Torah. If they had done so, Yaakov would have committed the psychological error of reminding Esau of how he had once deceived him.

וגם הנה הוא אחרינו, actually Yaakov had intended to flee in a different direction during the night if the angel had not delayed him. At the time he issued the instructions to his emissaries this had been intended as a stratagem to make Esau think that he was following on the heels of his gift whereas in fact he was not.

כי אמר אכפרה פניו במנחה, these were the words he had instructed the shepherds leading the gift to say, in order to soften Esau’s attitude by Yaakov assuming a somewhat servile attitude prior to their coming face to face with one another.

אכפרה פניו, I want to remove his anger. Every time the word כפרה appears it means the removal of something. For instance, in Isaiah 28,18 וכפר בריתכם את מות, “your covenant with death will be removed, cancelled.” The expression כפרת עון means “the removal of sin.” Compare also Isaiah 46,11.

אולי ישא פני. Nach den verschiedenen Bedeutungen der Wurzel נשא erscheint auch der Ausdruck נשא פנים in verschiedener Bedeutung. Insbesondere sind es die beiden: aufheben und auf sich nehmen, die hier in Betracht kommen. Hier: vielleicht wird er mein Angesicht, das jetzt נופל ist, niedergeschlagen, und das ich nicht zu erheben wage, aufheben, d. h. durch Vergeben und Vergessen machen, dass ich wieder zu ihm auf- schauen könne. לא תשא פני דל, überhaupt נשא פנים במשפט, ist in der Bedeutung auf sich nehmen, wovon: in sich aufnehmen, in den Kreis seiner Wahrnehmungen und Vorstellungen aufnehmen, daher: כי תשא את ראש, zählen, d. h. ja: die Existenzen mehrerer sich irgend einem gemeinsamen Begriff unterordnender Individuen nach einander ins Bewusstsein aufnehmen. Ebenso: נשא פנים במשפט, die Individualität, die Persönlichkeit der Partei mit unter die Faktoren des Urteils aufnehmen, Rücksicht darauf nehmen, wer vor Gericht steht.

אראה פניו, an expression denoting the “paying of a visit,” as we know from Exodus 34,23 where the Jewish people is instructed to visit the Temple three times annually with the same formula, i.e. יראה כל זכורך...ולא יראו פני ריקם, “every male of you is to visit Me; when they pay this visit they shall not come empty-handed.” Yaakov himself confirmed the meaning of the formula אראה פניך when he said to Esau in 33,10 על כן ראיתי פניך כראות פני אלוקים, “inasmuch as visiting you is akin to visiting the presence of G’d.” It was an accepted custom for a visitor to highly placed persons to arrive bearing gifts.

פניו, a reference to anger, seeing that anger is visible in one’s face. The idea of אכפרה פניו is to accomplish that his face no longer reflect his feeling of anger. We find this expression with Chanah, Samuel’s mother, after she had poured out her angry heart to G’d, having been deliberately goaded by Peninah, Elkanah’s other wife. (Samuel I 1,18) We also find this usage in Job 9,26.

The Midrash connects the word פניו in על פניו with פנים anger — he (Jacob) was also in an angry mood that it should be necessary for him to do all this (Genesis Rabbah 76:8).

AND HE HIMSELF LODGED THAT NIGHT IN THE CAMP. Scripture states that he did not enter his tent that night but lodged in the camp together with his servants and the shepherds of the flocks, set in array, as a man for war,⁵¹Jeremiah 6:23. lest his brother come at night and attack him.

ותעבור המנחה על פניו, Yaakov rehearsed the proceedings in order to satisfy himself that it would accomplish to give the impression he had meant for it to convey.

ותעבור המנחה על פניו, the words על פניו are equivalent to לפניו, “ahead of him, past him.” We encounter this expression in Samuel II 15,18 עוברים על פני המלך, “marching past the king.” According to Bereshit Rabbah 76,8 the words על פניו mean “under pressure.” In other words, the entire stratagem reflected Yaakov’s dire straits at the time.

והוא לן בלילה ההוא במחנה, “whereas he himself spent that night in the camp.” He did not enter his tent but spent the night in the company of the shepherds, in order not to become the victim of a surprise attack by his brother.

He was also angry that he had to resort to all this. [Rashi knows this] because it is written על פניו — similar to על אפו (in his anger) — instead of לפניו. (Gur Aryeh)

והוא לן בלילה ההוא במחנה, “and he (Yaakov) spent that night in the camp.” This is a reference to what we have read in verse14: וילן שם בלילה ההוא, “he spent the night there.” It has been repeated, as the gift that Yaakov sent to Esau has been reported in the meantime in detail.

והא לן בלילה ההוא במחנה. He spent the night with the people of his encampment as he was not walking behind the herds he had sent ahead.

ואת אחד עשר ילדיו AND HIS ELEVEN CHILDREN — But where was Dinah? He placed her in a chest and locked her in so that Esau should not set his fancy upon her (desire to marry her). On this account Jacob was punished — because he had kept her away from his brother for she might have led him back to the right path; she therefore fell into the power of Shechem (Genesis Rabbah 76:9).

AND HE TOOK HIS TWO WIVES, AND HIS TWO HANDMAIDS. There is no significance to being mentioned earlier or later in this verse with respect to rescue work. [Hence even though his wives are mentioned here first, from which you might infer that they appeared before Esau first, Scripture later states — 33:6 — that the handmaids came first.] Instead, Scripture states that he gathered his wives and handmaids and children at the edge of the brook, and he alone traversed the ford of the Jabbok to see if the waters were high, and then he returned and took them all with him at one time and made them pass the brook,⁵²Verse 24 here. and after that he made pass that which was his,⁵²Verse 24 here. namely, his camp and his belongings.

ויקם בלילה ההוא , he crossed the river at night because he intended to change direction to avoid a meeting with Esau. We find that David did something similar when he was fleeing from his son Avshalom at the same location of Machanyim as reported in Samuel II 17,21-24. At that time, coming from the direction of Jerusalem, David crossed the river Jordan, a more formidable river than the Yabbok, a mere tributary of the Jordan which could be crossed relatively easily. [flight by crossing a river, eliminating footprints and wading along the bank before crossing to the other side slows down the pursuers who first have to find in which direction the fugitive continued. Ed.].

ויקם בלילה הוא, the letter ה before the word הוא, indicating which night the verse speaks about, is missing here. The reason is that it was not a different night, but that Yaakov got up during the night already mentioned after having slept only briefly.

ויקח את שתי נשיו ואת שתי שפחותיו, “he took his two wives and his two maid servants, etc.” Nachmanides comments that we must remember that the Torah is not obliged to report events in chronological order, and that therefore the order in which the people in this verse are mentioned is not indicative of any order of priorities. The Torah simply mentions the steps taken to save the lives of these people by transporting them across the river. He himself remained on what was considered the exposed bank of that river. Yaakov’s crossing the fording of the river was designed to establish whether the water level was low enough to cross that fording safely without danger of drowning. After having satisfied himself on that score, he made all his people and livestock cross the river.

ויעבר את מעבר היבוק , “he crossed the ford of the Yabok.” He wanted to test if the river bed would rise for him (according to Nachmanides) and would enable him to cross on foot. Once he saw that the water level was shallow enough —
ויקחם ויעבירם את הנחל, “he took them and brought them across the river.” He then retraced his steps and —
ויעבר את אשר לו, “and he brought his belongings across.” He commanded his servants to do this. As a result he himself was the last one left on the wrong side of the river.

Where was Deenah? You might ask: How does Rashi know this? Perhaps Deenah was among the eleven, and one of the sons was missing. The answer is: It is written in v. 43:29, “Hashem be gracious to you, my son.” Yoseif said this to Binyamin. And, as Rashi explains, Yoseif blessed him so because for the other brothers it had already been said (v. 33:5), “The children whom Hashem has graciously granted your servant”. [Yaakov said this to Eisov when they met.] Since Binyomin was not yet born at that time, Yoseif blessed him now with grace. This clearly shows that “his eleven children” were the eleven sons, without Deenah. For otherwise, the question stands: why did Yoseif bless only Binyomin with grace, and not the other son who was missing at the time [that Yaakov met Eisov]?

ויקם. Er hatte erst die Absicht, über Nacht diesseits des Jabbok zu bleiben. Allein die Unruhe gönnte ihm keine Rast.

ויקם בלילה, “he arose during that night;” he intended to flee via a different route. (Rash’bam)

יבק JABBOK — the name of the river.

ויקח, he made them ready at the banks of the river to cross, while he himself crossed to test the depth of the water. This is the meaning of the words: ויעבר את מעבר יבוק, he brought them across the fording in the river Yabbok. Most rivers have points at which they are shallow, allowing people and animals to cross on foot. These locations are generally well known.

So that Eisov could not set eyes on her... I.e., for this reason we must say that it was Deenah who was missing, and that Yaakov placed her in a box because of Eisov. For otherwise, why was Yaakov punished through Deenah [i.e., the episode with Shechem]? Perforce, he was punished because he feared Eisov, and Yaakov therefore put her in a box. And this answers the question in the previous entry.

ויקם בלילה הוא, “a truncated phrase, which if grammatically correct should have been: ויקם הוא בלילה, “he arose during the night.” ויקח את שתי נשיו ואת שתי שפחותיו ואת אחד עשר ילדיו, “he took hold of his two wives, his two servant maids and his eleven children;” the wives are mentioned before the children, i.e. he transported them across the river first; he transported the wives across the river first, as he was more concerned with the children than with his wives; if Esau by chance should already have reached the far side of the river and was bent on killing him and his family, he would meet his wives first. At the time when Lavan had chased Yaakov, (from behind), Yaakov had positioned his wives, Lavan’s daughters behind him, so that Lavan would meet up with his daughters first.

ואת אחד עשר ילדיו, Dinah was included in the words “and his two wives,” as she was always close to Leah, her mother. Bereshit Rabbah 76,9 raises the question of where Dinah was in all this, and answers that Yaakov had put her into a box that he had locked. His concern had been that if Esau would see her he would take her by force. Rabbi Hunna, quoting Rabbi Abba Cohen son of Bar Delah, said that G’d reacted to this by quoting Job 6,14 למס מרעהו חסר, that he had thereby withheld an opportunity from Esau to become a penitent sinner. Moreover, if Esau had indeed married Dinah she would not have been raped by Shechem. Because Yaakov did not want her to become married to a circumcised person she wound up sleeping with an uncircumcised one. (compare 34,1)

Yaakov was thus punished... You might ask: It is written in v. 35:1, “Arise, go up to Beis Eil,” on which Rashi explains, “Because you lingered on your journey you have been punished and this trouble of your daughter has come to you.” [Does this not imply that Yaakov was not punished for withholding Deenah?] The answer is: Each of thee matters caused [Yaakov’s punishment].

יבק, “the name of the river.” There are some commentators who claim that this is an alternate name for the river Jordan. They arrive at this conclusion by quoting Yaakov as saying to G-d in verse 11: “I have crossed the river Jordan the first time equipped only with my walking stick, and by now I have become two camps.” Here the river has been called: Yabbok.

את אשר לו [HE MADE PASS] THAT WHICH WAS HIS — the cattle and movables. He acted as a ferry-man taking them from one side and setting them down on the other.

ויעבר את אשר לו, he ordered all of them to precede him in crossing the river; we have a similar construction in Samuel II 18,23 ויעבור את הכושי, “he passed the Cushite.”

ויקחם ויעברם, after he had first crossed by himself to test the depth of the water he returned to the original bank and led his people and flocks across. Those who needed to be carried on his shoulders he carried, the ones old enough to cross by themselves he took by the hand and led them across. According to Bereshit Rabbah 76,9 quoting Rav Hunna, Yaakov made himself into a bridge taking hold of the children on one side and depositing them on the other side of the river.

The cattle and movable property. He acted as a bridge... [How does Rashi know he acted as a bridge? The answer is:] Scripture writes [only once] that he “crossed over the ford of the Yabbok.” Otherwise [i.e., if he did not act as a bridge] Scripture should have written that he crossed back to where his wives were, before saying, “He took them....” [Perforce, he merely stretched his arms back over the river.] Another answer is: Rashi deduced this because it is written, “He took them and crossed them,” instead of simply saying, “He crossed them.” Perforce, he acted as a bridge.

ויעבר את אשר לו, after having transferred the children, wives, etc, he transferred his property, inert objects, the animals having swum across. After he had safely seen to it that everything had crossed he remained solitary on the far bank to check if anything had been left behind inadvertently. Our sages in Chulin 91 explain that the righteous who are so concerned with not laying claim to anything which is not absolutely theirs, are also careful not to waste any hard earned acquisitions, even if small. This is not a sign of being miserly.

ויותר יעקב AND JACOB WAS LEFT ALONE — He had forgotten some small jars and he returned for them (Chullin 91a).

ויותר יעקב לבדו, after he had transferred all his belongings to the other side of the river, so that the only one still to be brought across was he himself. The reason that he wanted to cross only after everyone else had already crossed was that he intended to flee in a different direction so as to avoid a face to face encounter with Esau.

ויותר יעקב לבדו, he was the last one to leave from the camp as he was busy directing all his family and servants and chattels to cross the fording so that nothing would be left behind.

ויאבק איש עמו, he wrestled with him so intensely that a cloud of dust enveloped them while they were struggling.

ויותר יעקב לבדו. “Yaakov remained alone.” According to Rashi, Yaakov had gone back in order to retrieve small and inexpensive utensils. Nachmanides explains the plain meaning of the statement to be that Yaakov had accompanied his family and folk and livestock across the river. After having done so, he commanded his servants to ferry the chattels across, while he supervised the work personally.

ויותר יעקב לבדו, “when Yaakov had remained alone, etc.” Our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 77,3 state that these words should be read as if Yaakov returned for his jug (read לכדו instead of לבדו). This teaches that Yaakov went back across the river to retrieve small vessels which had been overlooked. This teaches that the righteous are very meticulous even with relatively low-cost items seeing that when you acquire things by making certain none of them has been tainted by being stolen or otherwise illegally acquired, one does treasure what one has more than do other people who do not mind to acquire things less honestly. This is Rashi’s approach to our verse. Another approach: the vessels were used to drink out of and Yaakov was concerned that the younger children should have a chance to drink from them on the journey. [According to this interpretation, the correct translation of the words פכים קטנים, would be “vessels that the little ones drink from,” rather than “small vessels.”] He endangered himself in order to have convenient drinking vessels for his small children.

He had forgotten some small jars and he returned for them. [Rashi knows this] because he had already brought over all the important utensils, as it is written, “He brought over all that he possessed.” It does not mean literally jars, as all unimportant utensils are called פכים. Much has been said on this in Gur Aryeh and R. Noson, but Rashi explained it this way in Chulin 91a. (Kitzur Mizrachi)

AND JACOB WAS LEFT ALONE. That is, for he had forgotten some small jars, and he returned for them. These are the words of Rashi. But in line with the plain meaning of Scripture, the verse, And he took them, and made them pass the brook,⁵²Verse 24 here. means that he made them [his family] pass together with him, and he made pass that which was his⁵²Verse 24 here. — [i.e., his camp and his belongings] — by commanding others to do it. He returned [to his camp after ferrying his family across], and he commanded that all others pass over the brook before him, and so he remained behind them.

Da er bereits alles Seine und all die Seinigen über den Fluß gebracht hatte, so erklärt sich das Allein-zurückbleiben nur, wie die Weisen lehren: נשתייר על פכים קטנים, dass, nachdem er bereits alles hinüber gebracht hatte, er noch einmal zurückkehrte, um nachzusehen, ob er nichts vergessen. Und hieran knüpfen sie das bedeutsame Wort: ומכאן לצדיקים שחביב עליהם ממונם יותר מגופן וכל כך למה לפי שאין פושטין ידיהם בגזל (Chulin 91 a.): dass der Gerechte auch in dem kleinsten Werte rechtlich erworbenen Vermögens ein Heiligtum erblickt, das er weder vergeuden, noch nutzlos umkommen lassen dürfe, für dessen Verwendung er Rechenschaft zu geben habe. Eine Million hat für ihn den Wert einer Stecknadel, wenn es gilt, sie für gottgefällige Zwecke zu verausgaben, eine Stecknadel den Wert einer Million, wenn sie nutz- und zwecklos umkommen soll. Das geringste erworbene Gut ist dem, der nicht פושט ירו בגזל, der nichts gewaltsam, sondern nur das sein eigen nennt, was seinem redlichen Bemühen zu erwerben ge lungen, ein Denkmal der ihm fürsorgenden Allmacht und Güte, das Kleinste ein Produkt redlichen Schweißes und göttlichen Segens, und darum von unnennbarem Werte.

ויותר יעקב לבדו, “Yaakov remained behind all alone;” according to Rashi, Yaakov remained behind on the far bank of the Yabbok, to check if any insignificant item had been overlooked when they took all their belongings across. (Talmud, tractate Chulin, folio 91.) The letter ב in the word לבדו is supposed to be exchanged for the letter כ so that the word is to be read as לכדו. (small cans.) An alternate interpretation: it refers to בית הבד, a container in which small quantities of olive oil would be stored and which could be hidden easily.

ויאבק איש עמו, “a man began to wrestle with him.” The “man,” was an angel who had assumed the form of a human being. The angel, Esau’s protective power, had come to prevent Yaakov from escaping from Esau. He realised soon that G-d’s assurances to Yaakov were strong enough to protect him against being harmed by Esau. (Rash’bam)

ויאבק איש AND A MAN WRESTLED — Menachem (ben Seruk) explains: “a man covered himself with dust”, taking the verb as connected in sense with אבק “dust”. It would mean that they were raising the dust with their feet through their movements. I, however, am of opinion that is means “he fastened himself on”, and that it is an Aramaic word, as (Sanhedrin 63b) “after they have joined (אביקו) it", and (Menachot 42a) “and he twined (the “Fringes”) with loops”. It denotes “intertwining”, for such is the manner of two people who make strong efforts to throw each other — one clasps the other and twines himself round him with his arms. Our Rabbis of blessed memory explained that he was Esau’s guardian angel (Genesis Rabbah 77:3).

ויאבק, an angel engaged him in a physical fight, his purpose being to prevent Yaakov from fleeing. Only in this way could G’d’s promise to Yaakov that Esau would not harm him be fulfilled.

ויאבק איש עמו, this was the work of an angel at the instigation of G’d (that is why he is called איש). The description is parallel to Kings II 13,17 It is immaterial whether the instrument of the salvation is a merely symbolic one such as the arrows described in the Book of Kings which Elisha instructed King Yoash to shoot in the direction of the far away Kingdom of Aram. Salvation occurs at the end of a period of ups and downs, and though Yaakov/Israel suffered many reverses in his struggle with Esau, (in the historical global struggle between the two philosophies) in the end Yaakov triumphs. [freely translated as the author is ambiguous to my mind. Ed.] The blessing given by the angel here to Yaakov at the end of the struggle, at daybreak, symbolises the synopsis of Jewish history.

איש, the same type of איש as in Joshua 5,13, i.e. an angel. This was the angel Gavriel, described as איש par excellence in Daniel 9,21. The reason why these angels are called איש is because they appear to the people with whom they converse in human guise. The types of angels who speak with man are referred to as איש, as they appear either in a vision or while the person to whom they appear is fully awake. G’d had sent this angel to Yaakov to strengthen his courage, not to fear Esau. If Yaakov could prevail over an angel, surely he had no reason to be afraid of an encounter with someone like Esau! The fact that the struggle lasted until daybreak was an allusion to Yaakov that after a period of night, i.e. problems, adversity, there would come a period of light, peace and prosperity coupled with security..

ויאבק איש עמו, “a man wrestled with him, etc..” The word ויאבק descries an activity similar to ויחבק, “he embraced him,” presumably in a kind of bear hug. The letter א frequently substitutes for the letter ח.

ויאבק איש עמו, “a man wrestled with him.” According to the plain meaning of the text, the meaning of ויאבק is the same as ויחבק seeing that the letters אהע"ח are frequently interchangeable. Our sages in Sotah 21 use the word אבוקה and חבוקה interchangeably. An אבוקה, torch, is so called as it is composed of pieces of wood which “embrace” each other, i.e. חבוקה.

Our Sages have explained that this was Eisov’s guardian angel. Rashi proves this on, “If I have found favor in your eyes... like seeing the face of a Godly being” (33:10). Maharshal writes: You might ask: What caused Rashi make the forced explanation that ויאבק is of Aramaic origin, instead of saying like Menachem did? The answer is: It is because our Sages say that this was Eisov’s guardian angel. [And it says in Chulin 91a that according to the view that they kicked up dust,] they raised dust until the Throne of Glory. But Eisov’s guardian angel, [could not reach such a lofty level].

‘VAYEI’AVEIK’ A MAN WITH HIM, A man covered himself with dust. So Menachem ben Saruk explained it, being derived from the word avak (dust); by their movements, they were raising dust with their feet. I, however, am of the opinion that it means “and he attached himself to,” and that it is an Aramaic word, as in, “After they have joined (aviku) it;”⁵³Sanhedrin 63b. “And they twined the Fringes with loops.”⁵⁴Menachoth 42a. This is all the language of Rashi.
In the language of the Sages, avikah is often used to convey the sense of chavikah (loop), as in: “There are avkso (loops) in the punishing scourge;”⁵⁵Makkoth 23a., “A couch is called dargesh when it is set up and taken apart by means of loops, through which the cords are fastened.”⁵⁶Nedarim 56b. Similarly the word avukah (a torch) is so called in the language of the Sages because it is made up of small pieces of wood which are tied and bound together. This is because the letter cheth is difficult to pronounce in their language and so they used the easier aleph. Many times the cheth disappears completely as in tuteich⁵⁷Chullin 7 b: metutei (from beneath her feet). (underneath) in place of techuteich; mesuta⁵⁸Kiddushin 33a. (a bath) in place of maschuta; asita⁵⁹Shabbath 77b. (a mortar) in place of chasita. And it is possible that the word vayei’aveik is actually vayeichaveik, as vayechabkeihu (and he embraced him),⁶⁰Genesis 33:4. for perhaps it is the way of the Hebrew language to interchange the aleph and cheth. Thus we find: And in the fourth chariot grizzled ‘amutzim’ horses,⁶¹Zechariah 6:3. which is the same as chamitzim, derived from the expression, ‘chamutz’ (crimsoned) garments.⁶²Isaiah 63:1. Commentators⁶³R’dak in his Book of Roots, under the root erez. have said that ‘va’aruzim’ for thy merchandise⁶⁴Ezekiel 27:24. is like vecharuzim, derived from the expression, thy neck ‘bacharuzim’ (with beads).⁶⁵Song of Songs 1:10. So too did they say concerning the word vate’altzeihu⁶⁶Judges 16:16. that it is like vatechaltzeihu (and she pressed him), this being an inverted form of vatilchatzeihu, [the root of which is lachatz (oppression)]. Perhaps this is the opinion of Onkelos who said, in translation of the word vayei’aveik, ve’ishtadeil, and so also he translated the expression, And if a man ‘yephateh’⁶⁷Exodus 22:15. “as if yeshadeil,” if he embraces and kisses which is the manner of seduction. It may be that Onkelos found no word comparable to vayei’aveik, and so he considered it a matter of cunning, for all effort implies cunning and a clarification of circumstances. In Bereshith Rabbah⁶⁸77:3. the Sages said: “Who became filled with dust? The man that was with him.” This agrees with the words of Menachem [ben Saruk, who said that vayei’aveik means “he covered himself with dust] “, and this is the correct interpretation.

Es hatte Jakob die Winzigkeit des Beistandes, den er von den Seinigen zu erwarten hatte, gegen die diesem gegenüber riesige Macht Esaus gemessen, und das Resultat dieser Erwägung hatte ihm einen Angstruf zu Gott entlockt, auf welchen ihm noch erst die Antwort werden sollte. Diesen Angstruf "הצילני נא" bezeichnen die Andeutungen der Propheten, als das dritte Merkzeichen der Geula, als der Geula, die sich in der vollendeten, preisgebenden Machtlosigkeit des Galuth bewährt. Das Erlebnis, das ihm die so bedeutungsvolle Antwort bringen sollte, traf ihn entsprechend in einem solchen Momente, wo er auch noch des winzigen Beistandes, dessen er gewärtig sein konnte, beraubt, völlig allein sich befand, und nur auf das seiner Persönlichkeit Inwohnende angewiesen war.

עד עלות השחר, “until dawn.”

עם הֵאָבֵק kommt nur bei diesem Ereignis vor. אבק: Staub. Man übersetzt auch עפר: Staub, allein עפר ist nicht das, was wir Staub nennen, sondern der Humus, die fruchtbare lockere Erdhülle; verwandt mit עֵבר, Außenseite, עור Haut. So wie עור, die Haut am Körper das Organ ist, wodurch die Außenwelt auf den Körper einwirkt — (עור wach werden ist der Zustand, in welchem die, im Schlaf in sich zurückgezogene Seele wieder gleichsam in die Haut tritt) — so ist עפר derjenige Teil des Erdkörpers, in welchem sich durch kosmische Reize von außen irdisches Leben entwickelt. אבק aber ist ganz eigentlich das, was wir "Staub" nennen, also: solche Teile irdischer Masse, die, losgelöst, fast alle Schwere verloren haben, und bei leichtester Veranlassung emporwirbeln. Verwandt ist אפק, das aus seinem Halt Herausstürzende, von פוק: herausgehen mit individ. אי, oder auch der Raum, aus welchem es hervorstürzt. So auch בוק und בקק leer werden, בקבוק: ein Gefäß, aus welchem Flüssigkeit herausstürzt. So scheint denn auch der Wurzel אבק die Bedeutung: etwas rasch seinem Standpunkte ent- rücken, inne zu wohnen. Analogie dafür bietet: ויתאבכו גאות עשן (Jes. 9, 17) sie wirbeln majestätisch empor, aber es ist die Majestät des Rauches! — הֵאָבֵק עם wäre demnach: das gegenseitige Bestreben, dem andern seinen Stand auf der Erde zu entziehen, ihn zum אבק zu machen. Verwandt damit חבק, das Bestreben, jemanden fest an sich zu ziehen, umarmen.

Der von diesen beiden Kämpfern "emporwirbelnde Staub" — lautet ein Ausspruch der Weisen — war ein Staub, der zum Weltenthron Gottes emporstieg — מלמד שהעלו אבק רנליהם עד כסא הכבוד — (Chulin 912.); denn dieser Kampf ist ein Prototyp des Kampfes, der die ganze Geschichte hindurch dauert, ja, er ist der eigentliche Inhalt der Weltgeschichte.

שחר, von שחר isuchen, die Zeit, wo man schon suchen kann, aber noch suchen muss; die beginnende Dämmerung, die dem בקר, der Zeit des deutlichen Erkennens und Unterscheidens, vorangeht.

So lange es Nacht auf Erden, so lange das Bewusstsein der Menschen getrübt ist, und die Dinge, unkenntlich verschlungen, nicht in ihrer Wahrheit und Klarheit erkannt werden, so lange — also spricht sich die Bedeutung dieses nächtlichen Erlebnisses als Antwort auf Jakobs Angstruf aus — so lange wird er freilich auf Kampf und Gegensatz zu rechnen haben. Und es ist der mit Reichsapfel, Zepter und Schwert gerüstete Genins Esaus, שרו של עשו, nach dem Worte der Weisen — hat ja auch Jakob ausdrücklich in ihm ein höheres Wesen erkannt (Raw Hirsch on Genesis 32: 31) und diese Erkenntnis im Namen des Ortes verewigt — mit dem Jakob zu ringen haben wird, bis die Nacht von der Erde weicht. ויאבק איש עמו, nicht Jakob, der Gegner ist der Angreifende, Jakob ringt nur im Verteidigungskampf.

ויגע בכף ירכו HE TOUCHED THE HOLLOW OF HIS THIGH — The upper thigh-bone that is sunk in the hip is called כף because the flesh on it (on this bone) has the form of the hollow part of a pot-ladle (כף).

AND HE SAW THAT HE PREVAILED NOT AGAINST HIM. Ye angels of His, ye mighty in strength, that fulfill His word.⁶⁹Psalms 103:20. Because of this⁷⁰Although the angel’s strength was superior to Jacob’s, he was restrained by G-d from harming him. the angel could not prevail against him to harm him for it was not permitted to him to do other than that which he did to him, namely, to disjoint the hollow of his thigh. Now the Rabbis have said in Bereshith Rabbah:⁷¹77:4. “He touched all the righteous people who were destined to come from Jacob. This refers to the generation of religious persecution.”⁷²This refers to the religious persecution during the reign of Emperor Hadrian, 117-138 Common Era. The purport of this Midrash is that this entire event constitutes a hint to his generations, indicating that there will be a generation from the seed of Jacob against whom Esau [Rome] will prevail to the extent of almost uprooting his seed. This occurred in one generation during the period of the Sages of the Mishnah, which was the generation of Rabbi Yehudah ben Baba⁷³In Sanhedrin, 13 b, it is recounted how this Sage suffered martyrdom for the sake of ordaining his disciples, an act which the Romans had forbidden. and his companions.⁷⁴Possibly a reference to the Assarah harugei malchuth, the Ten great Rabbis who endured martyrdom rather than abide by the Hadrianic regulations. As they said:⁷⁵Shir Hashirim Rabbah 2:18. “Rabbi Chiya bar Abba said, ‘If a person were to tell me, “Give your life for the sanctification of the Name of the Holy One, blessed be He,” I would give it, providing only that they slay me immediately. But in the generation of religious persecution I could not endure!’ And what did the Romans do in that generation? They would bring iron balls and heat them in fire and then place them under their arm-pits and cause their death.” And there are other generations in which they have done to us such things as these and even worse, but we have endured and it has passed over us, just as it is hinted in the verse, And Jacob came in peace.⁷⁶Further, 33:18.

כי לא יכול לו, the angel did not succeed in preventing Yaakov from crossing and fleeing.

לא יכול לו, seeing that most of Yaakov’s striving was oriented toward G’d and heavenly concerns. Both his thinking and his conversation had G’d and His will as its focus.

וירא כי לא יוכל לו, that he could not force him to the ground.

וירא כי לא יכול לו, “when the man realized that he could not overpower him, etc.,” actually, he could have overpowered Yaakov, seeing that he was an angel disguised as a human being, איש; however he had not received permission to do this. All he had been allowed to do was to dislocate Yaakov’s hip joint. This injury too was intended to serve as a warning to the Jewish people in the future that there would arise a descendant of Esau, the Roman Empire, who would threaten to totally annihilate the people.

נגע ב־ ist immer ein ungehöriges Anrühren: נוגע בטומאה בקדש usw. Häufig auch: ein heftiges, feindliches Anpacken, so (Job 1, 19) von dem Sturm, der das Haus an allen vier Seiten packte und umriss: .ויגע בארבע פנות הבית ותקע — von ,יקע schwebend werden, daher הוקע schwebend machen, henken. — כף הירך ist der starke Fleischmuskel, welcher das Schenkelbein regiert und den festen Stand und Gang auf der Erde bedingt. Der Gegner wollte Jakob von der Erde aufheben und ganz niederwerfen. Das, sah er, gelang ihm nicht. Da packte er ihn an den Hüftballen und, indem Jakob sich ihm widersetzte, wurde der Muskel von seinen Bändern losgerissen, so, dass er fortan den Fuß nicht mehr regieren konnte und Jakob dadurch hinkend wurde. Also: während des ganzen nächtlichen Kampfes bemüht sich Jakobs Gegner, ihm den Boden völlig unter den Füßen zu entziehen, ihm die Existenz auf Erden überhaupt streitig zu machen. Das gelingt nicht; wohl aber gelingts ihm, ihm die materielle Kraft zu schwächen und ihn zu hindern, sich seiner natürlichen Anlagen und Kräfte zum festen Fortschritt auf Erden zu bedienen.

וירא, “the angel saw;” (realised)

ותקע AND WAS STRAINED — It was violently torn from its joint. Similar in meaning is (Jeremiah 6:8) “Lest My soul be alienated (תקע) from thee” — i.e. removed from thee; and in the Mishna, לקעקע בצתם, which means to remove violently (לשרש) their roots.

ותקע, was dislocated, separated. We find the word as having a similar meaning in Jeremiah 6,8 פן תקע נפשי ממך; “lest My essence not become separated from you (Israel).” Whereas in the words ירך the emphasis is on the first syllable, in verse 33 in the word הירך the emphasis is on the letter ר, seeing that there it is used as a noun, whereas here it appears in an adjective mode. Whenever ירך appears in a construct form (Exodus 40,24, i.e. as something subordinate, its stress is on the first syllable) Also the kametz changes to a segol, as the word in unadorned mode is yarech and not yerech. [the author quotes parallels from the word gezel and gazel, respectively, claiming that the unadorned noun for robbery is gazel not gezel. He makes the same claim for the words geder and gader (fence) respectively. [In modern Hebrew the latter is accepted whereas “robbery,” גזל, does not appear with a kametz, but the difference between the construct mode and the unadorned noun is merely that the latter has a chataf segol instead of a regular vowel segol. Ed.]

ויגע he informed him that in the future, i.e. כף ירכו, many of his offspring would become guilty of sins against G’d. While this troubled Yaakov he momentarily digressed from his concentration on G’d so that the angel could inflict an injury upon him during his lapse of concentration.

ויגע בכף ירכו, he hinted to him that whereas Esau would not be able to overpower him, danger lurked for him from another source, that someone of his own children would cause him grief. He referred to his daughter who would be raped by an uncircumcised gentile. This is why he injured his כף ירכו, the word כף being feminine. Yaakov understood all this from what the angel had done, but he may not have understood how this hint applied to his daughter until it happened. He may have thought that she would either take sick or die. The entire episode must be viewed as a dream he had, even though on the morrow he found himself limping. This was a sign from G’d, a reprisal of a kind, for the doubts he had expressed about the various promises G’d had made him. G’d now punished him by making him unable to rely on parts of his body that he was in the habit of relying on. True, Yaakov trusted G’d with all his heart, but he was in a constant state of worry that the promises he had received would not come true due to some sin he had committed. Considering that G’d’s promise had been repeated on different occasions, proving that in the interval Yaakov had not forfeited his claim to them, he should no longer have doubted that G’d would not keep His promise for whatever reason. His servile behaviour towards Esau, including the many times he called him adoni, “my lord,” implied a lack of trust in the validity of G’d’s promises to him. Neither should he have sent him such an elaborate gift, nor should he have prostrated himself before him repeatedly. By doing so he committed a sin and G’d punished him in this life by afflicting his body, retribution already for planning to do this. If you prefer, you may understand this story as something taking place while Yaakov was awake but that he day dreamed the event and that the man appeared to him in this dream but that was a figment of his imagination. Similar events occurred in Joshua 5,13 although the conversation between Joshua and the angel sounds very real. In Judges 6,11 a similar wakeful encounter with someone perceived as an angel in human guise happened to Gideon, and there are more such instances in the Scriptures. In fact, we could also understand the encounter between angels and Avraham, and between Lot and the angels in such terms. However, the difficulty with such an interpretation in our example is the physical contact not only described in the narrative, but the evidence of an injury sustained by Yaakov which could hardly have resulted from some hallucinatory encounter. It is difficult to reconcile the Torah’s historical note that in commemoration of Yaakov’s injury the Jewish people do not eat the organ of an animal that corresponds to the one which was injured in Yaakov’s body during that encounter.

ויגע בכף ירכו, “he ‘touched’ his thigh-joint.” He intended thereby to cause Yaakov to fall to the ground, in the manner of two people wrestling, when each one attempts to first force his opponent to the ground. Some commentators claim that the angel tried to inflict a disabling blow on Yaakov, one that would disqualify him from performing service on the altar, as a penalty for his having taken the birth right from Esau, i.e. Esau’s privilege to perform such service for G’d. on the altar. Prior to the building of the Tabernacle all such service was performed by the firstborn of each Jewish household.

כי לא יוכל לו “that he could not overpower Yaakov;” the words: לא יוכל, must be understood in the sense that Moses used them before taking leave from his people, when he said: in Deut. 31,2: לא אוכל עוד לצאת ולבא, “I cannot any longer lead you in war,” where he was physically fully able, but G-d had forbidden him to do so. The author cites more examples of the word יכול occurring in that sense.

ותקע, we find the word used in a similar meaning in Jeremiah 6,8 פן תקע נפשי ממך, “lest My essence be removed from you.”

ויגע, “the angel touched in a manner which twisted (his hip joint);

בכף ירכו, “his hip joint;” he tried to dislocate his hip joint, hoping that this would cause him to fall down.

ותקע, “he succeeded in dislocating it.” This is one of the words which can be interpreted in two opposite ways depending on the context in which they appear. A well known example is the root דשן, which can mean “to saturate,” i.e. to heap more and more of a substance onto something, but it also appears as removing excess ashes from the altar. (Compare Exodus 27,3) The root תקע is more familiar to us as meaning to firmly establish something, such as the pegs holding a tent to the ground it is on. Compare Genesis 31,25, ויעקב תקע את אהלו בהר, “and Yaakov placed his tent firmly on the mountain.” Compare Leviticus 6,3, Psalms 80,10, and Psalms 52,7. In our verse it describes the angel’s attempt to uproot Yaakov.

כף ירך יעקב, “the hip joint of Yaakov.” The angel succeeded to injure Yaakov despite G-d’s assurances to him that “I will protect you wherever you go;” because Yaakov allowed himself to be frightened of Esau in spite of G-d’s assurances. [This was a lack of faith in G-d’s promise. Ed.] We find something similar with Moses, whom the angel injured and almost killed. (The incident at the inn on the way to Egypt) He had been assured of G-d’s support (Exodus 3,12) but displayed fear of Pharaoh, and refused the mission to become the leader of the Jewish people and to return to Egypt. (Exodus 3,13) He had asked G-d to send anyone but him.

כי עלה השחר FOR THE DAY BREAKETH, and I have to sing God’s praise at day (Chullin 91b; Genesis Rabbah 78:1).

כי עלה השחר, seeing that it is daylight already it is time for you to be on your way. (to the meeting with Esau).

לא אשלחך, this utterance by Yaakov confirms what the sages tell us that the righteous are greater than the ministering angels (Sanhedrin 92).

לא אשלחך, "I will not let you depart, etc." When the angel said to Jacob that he had struggled with a celestial being and had prevailed, he meant that he now could not depart without Jacob's permission. When Jacob said: "unless you bless me," he meant that he would assure him that the injury he caused to Jacob's hip-joint would not be permanent. It is also possible that the mere fact that Jacob now realised he had wrestled with an angel prompted him to ask for a blessing from that angel.

ויאמר שלחני, he meant that he had been sent by G’d to Yaakov to demonstrate to him by a factual illustration that he would not overcome him, and that a mere human being such as Esau would certainly not be able to harm him. Now that I have accomplished my mission, please let me go. In other words, “unless you have any other request from me, I am leaving.” Yaakov said that indeed he did want something else of him, and until that was granted he would not let him depart. He wanted to receive the angel’s blessing. The reason that the angel added the words

כי אם ברכתני, “unless you have first blessed me.” In accordance with the accepted principle that the person who inflicts injury is in a better position to heal same than anyone else by pronouncing a formula wishing his victim a speedy recovery. The angel wanted to know Yaakov’s name, as it is mandatory for the healer to know the victim’s name if his efforts are to be crowned with success. Another explanation of the meaning of כי אם ברכתני, has Yaakov asking for a blessing from the angel, as an acknowledgment that he had prevailed in the struggle. with celestial forces. This was the reason why Yaakov asked the angel for his name. He wanted to be able in the future to be able to tell whomever it concerned that he had battled an angel to a standstill. The angel protested that it would be embarrassing for him that Yaakov should boast to have overcome him. In lieu of revealing his name, he bestowed a blessing on Yaakov that incorporated an allusion to this nocturnal encounter every time he would be addressed by this name.

ויאמר שלחוני, “he (the angel) said: ‘let me go!’” The angel was afraid that if he were to leave without having obtained Yaakov’s permission they would punish him in heaven with having to endure the פולסי דנורא [some physical punishment administered by a fiery rod and mentioned in Chagigah 15 and elsewhere as an instrument for disciplining wayward angels. Ed.] We have another reference to this incident in (Hoseah 12,5) “He strove with an angel and prevailed; the other had to weep and implore him.”

Concede to me the blessings with which my father blessed me... You might ask: Perhaps Yaakov requested that he actually bless him? The answer is: The angel replied, “No longer will your name be spoken of as Yaakov.” How did this answer [Yaakov’s request]? Perforce, the angel’s answer means as Rashi explains: “It will no longer be said that the blessings came to you through deceit and trickery.” This implies that Yaakov had requested for a concession to the blessings, and the angel replied accordingly. (Re’m)

לא אשלחך כי אם־, wörtlich: ich entlasse dich nicht; denn (ich entlasse dich) wenn du mich gesegnet. So überall das לא־ כי אם־, das כי ist immer elliptisch: denn ich tue es, wenn — also ich tue es nur, wenn usw. — Jakobs Gegner kann also nur kämpfen, so lange es Nacht auf Erden ist, und zwar, so lange es Nacht ist, scheint er, wenn auch nicht der Sieger, doch der Mächtigere zu sein. Sobald es aber Tag zu werden beginnt, tritt das Gegenteil in die Erscheinung und Jakob wird der "Maßgebende" für die Beendigung des Kampfes. Und die Bedingung, die Jakob für das Ende des Kampfes setzt, somit das Ziel des Ganzen, ist: die Anerkennung, dass Jakob statt Anfeindung Segen und Förderung verdiene, indem nur in dieser Anerkennung die Völker sich selber segnen, und sich die Verheißung erfüllt: ונברכו בך כל משפחות האדמה ובזרעך. Die ganze Nacht hindurch, spricht daher Jakob, hast du mich angegriffen, mich also als ein Hindernis betrachtet, dessen Vernichtung in unablässigem Kampfe anzustreben wäre. Jetzt, da es tagt, gibst du den Kampf auf, ich aber nicht früher, als bis du mir die segnende Anerkennung gezollt. Das Ziel der Geschichte liegt nicht darin, dass Jakob gezwungen werde, in die Masse der Völker aufzugehen, sondern umgekehrt, dass die Völker zur Einsicht gelangen, gerade in dem, inmitten aller Kämpfe von Jakob vertretenen und emporgehaltenen Prinzip liege auch das Heil der Völker, dem sie sich huldigend anzuschließen, und das vielmehr sie selbst mit allen ihren geistigen und materiellen Mitteln zu fördern, ja als einziges Ziel anzustreben haben. —

שלחני כי עלה השחר, “give me permission to leave for dawn has arisen!” “Until now I held you up from proceeding according to plan; now you have permission to proceed on your way.” An alternate exegesis of this strange conversation: The angel told Yaakov that since it now was almost daylight, he no longer had anything to fear from him. It is not customary for destructive forces to do their jobs during the daylight hours.

ברכתני [EXCEPT] THOU BLESS ME — admit my right to the blessings which my father gave me and to which Esau lays claim.

כי אם ברכתני, as a sign that you have parted from me in peace, that I will not suffer harm or damage through having been in a struggle with you.. Now that it had become daylight Yaakov realised for the first time that his adversary had been an angel.

כי עלה השחר, that it is already becoming morning, was that Yaakov had no reason to be afraid, as the night, the time for fear, had already passed. Being alone, without escort during daylight is no reason for concern.

כי עלה השחר, “for dawn as risen.” When the angel asked to leave before daybreak Yaakov asked him: “are you a thief that you need to fear daylight?” He answered “I am an angel and ever since I have been created I have not yet had the opportunity to sing a song of praise to the Lord in the heavenly choir. Today is my opportunity.” There is a reference to this in Scripture (Job 38,7) ברן יחד כוכבי בוקר ויריעו כל בני אלוקים. “When the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy.” The time of dawn is the time when the קדושה is recited as mentioned by Isaiah 6,3 “and one would call to he other: Holy, Holy, Holy.” Hearing this, Yaakov replied:
לא אשלחך כי אם ברכתני, “I will not let you go unless you first bless me.” He wanted Esau’s angel to acknowledge that the blessing he had received from Yitzchak was acknowledged by Esau as being rightfully his. Thereupon the angel said:
לא יעקב יאמר עוד שמך כי אם ישראל, “your name will no longer be Yaakov but Israel.” He meant that from now on people will no longer say that you obtained the blessings by subterfuge, but they will admit that you are the rightful recipient of them. Alternatively, what the angel meant was that if anyone were to accuse Yaakov of having swindled Lavan they would be proven wrong as Yaakov had been accorded the attribute “Truth”, i.e. that he had acted truthfully in all his undertakings. This was confirmed in Michah 7,20 “You have given “truth” to Yaakov.”

כי אם ברכתני, “unless you first give me a blessing.” Yaakov meant that he would not accept the angel’s words until he had demonstrated that he meant it, by giving him a blessing. After that he would feel confident that he no longer had reason to fear him and would not seek revenge because he had failed to disable him. (Rash’bam)

?ויאמר ..מה שמך?, this question is only an opener for the dialogue that follows. We have several such examples, as in Genesis 3,9 where G’d asks Adam איכה?, “where are you?,” though He was perfectly aware of Adam’s whereabouts. Similarly, in Exodus 4,2 G’d asks Moses “what is this in your hand?,” knowing full well that Moses was holding a staff in his hand. Here too, Yaakov was well aware who the angel was seeing he had been sent to him specifically.

לא יעקב [THY NAME SHALL] NO MORE BE CALLED JACOB [BUT ISRAEL] (literally, “not Jacob — supplanting — shall any more be said to thee”) — It shall no longer be said that the blessings came to you through supplanting and subtlety but through noble conduct (שררה) and in an open manner. Because later on the Holy One, blessed be He, will reveal Himself to you at Bethel and will change your name. There He will bless you, and I shall be there and admit your right to them (the blessings). It is to this that the passage refers (Hosea 12:5), “And he strove with an angel and prevailed; he wept and made supplication unto him” — it means the angel wept and made supplication unto him (Jacob). What was the subject of his supplication? This is stated in the next verse: “At Bethel He will meet us and there He will speak with us — implying the request. “Wait until he will speak with us there, and then I will admit your right to the blessings.” Jacob, however, would not agree to this, and against his own wish he had to admit his right to the blessings. That is what is meant when it states (v. 30) “And he declared him blessed there”, that he begged him to wait and he did not agree to do so (cp. Genesis Rabbah 78:2).

כי שרית, the word is derived from שרה in Hoseah 12,4 ובאונו שרה את אלוקים, “and with his might he fought with a Divine Being (reference to Yaakov).” The construction is parallel to קנה-קנית, or עשה-עשית. However, in the same chapter, verse 5 in Hoseah, the word וישר in the line וישר אל מלאך ויוכל, “he wrestled with an angel and prevailed,” is not derived from the root שרה but is of the same category of verbs as קם, שב, רץ all of which have a letter ו in the middle in the infinitive. The corresponding construction to ours of those examples would be ויקם, ויקב, וירץ, as in וישר from the root שור, ”to wrestle.” As to the fact that in spite of his victory, Yaakov was injured in that struggle, this was a punishment for his attempt to flee, in spite of his having been assured by G’d that He would help and protect him. We find other examples of great people who pursue a path that does not conform with G’d’s will that as a result they experience punishment for ignoring G’d’s will. As soon as Moses refused the mission and told G’d to send someone else, (Exodus 4,13) we find that G’d became angry at him. According to the plain meaning of the text there, although the sages say that wherever G’d’s anger is mentioned the subject at whom G’d is angry is visibly punished, whereas there is no word about Moses being punished for his words שלח נא ביד תשלח, Aaron who was meant to function only as a Levite, became the High Priest, a role which Moses would have filled but for his improper refusal to accept G’d’s mission without demurring. This is an explanation based on an allegorical approach, whereas the plain meaning is that at the inn, when on his way to Egypt, Moses was almost killed for having been remiss in not circumcising his son Eliezer before setting out on his journey. Jonah, too was punished for trying to circumvent the will of G’d and spent three most uncomfortable days inside one or more fish. Similarly, G’d’s anger resulted in Bileam being harmed by his ass when contravening G’d’s will and setting out on his way to curse the Jewish people (Numbers 22,22 indicates that he walked with a pronounced limp, presumably due to having his leg squeezed against the wall by his ass as per Numbers 22,25.

לא יעקב יאמר עוד שמך, a reference to the end of days when Israel will have survived the destruction of the gentile nations When that time comes no one ever will again use the name Yaakov for the Jewish people [and the stigma that used to be associated with that name. Ed.] The very word יעקב already contained within this message that the bearer of this name will triumph at the end. Once he has triumphed there is no more point in having a name which alludes to something which will be realised only in the future. The future will then have arrived!

ויאמר, an angel is allowed to expand the parameters of his mission, as we know already from when Lot asked the angel to allow him not to climb the mountain but to spend the night in Tzoar (Genesis 19,21). The angel there describes himself as granting permission, although it is possible that he checked with G’d first and the Torah did not bother to mention this.

God will reveal Himself to you in Beis Eil, and change your name... I.e., the angel did not change Yaakov’s name here. Rather, he told Yaakov that Hashem will change his name in the future, and he said that he will interpret the change [of his name] that Hashem will make as applying to the blessings.

לא יאמר, nicht לא יקרא: dein Name soll nicht mehr "der die Ferse zu halten Bestimmte" "gedeutet" werden; nicht, er soll nicht mehr Jakob heißen (erteilt wird ihm der Name Israel erst später durch Gott, Kap.35, 10), sondern der Name Jakob selbst soll als Israel begriffen werden. ישראל, von שרה, der einen Seite des Herrscherbegriffes, überragen, größer sein, heißt ja wörtlich: Gott ist der Überragende, der alles andere an Macht und Größe Überwältigende, und das soll ja in Wahrheit die Bedeutung des Zustandes sein, der durch יעקב ausgedrückt ist. Nur wenn ein יעקב, ein seiner äußeren Erscheinung nach nur unter die Ferse aller übrigen Gewiesenes, die feindseligsten Angriffe und Kämpfe des materiell gerüstetsten Gegners siegreich besteht weist dieser Erfolg auf das Vorhandensein einer alle materielle Größe und Macht überwiegenden geistigen Kraft, auf das Vorhandensein einer Gottesallmacht hin, die sich eben in der siegreichen Ausdauer dieses äußerlich Schwachen offenbart, und ist somit gerade יעקב als ישראל zu begreifen. —

כי שרית עם אלהים, “you have now become the equal of angels, but you have not succeeded in outranking them.”

ועם אנשים AND WITH MEN —Esau and Laban.

לא יעקב יאמר, the meaning is “not only Yaakov will your name be in future.” We have examples of parallel meanings in Joshua 22,20 לא גוע בעונו, “he did not die due to his sin,” where the meaning is that “not only Achan died for his sin, but due to his sin many others died.“ [The Israelites who fell in the first battle of Ai. Ed.] Also in Kings II 6,10, the words לא אחת ולא שתים, “not one and not two,” is such a construction. The expression means: “not once but many times.” Knowing that the meaning of our verse is that Yaakov will henceforth not only be known as Yaakov, helps explain the many occasions later when this original name is applied to him, as distinct from the name change of Avram to Avraham.

כי אם ישראל כי שרית, they will only refer to as “Israel.” This new name is to confirm that שרית עם אלוקים ועם אנשים, this is analogous to Isaiah 24,21 יפקוד ה' על צבא המרום במרום ועל מלכי האדמה על האדמה, “in that day the Lord will punish the host of heaven in heaven and the kings of the earth on earth.”

ותוכל, da du vermocht hast. Du hast das vollständig erreicht, was du gewollt, nicht ich. Ich wollte dich niederwerfen, das habe ich nicht vermocht. Du wolltest nur nicht niedergeworfen werden, das ist dir gelungen. Das ist auch für alle Zeit die Stellung Jakobs und Esaus zu einander geblieben. Politisch und religiös spricht Esau: außer mir kein Heil, und erkennt seine Existenz für beeinträchtigt, so lange noch außer ihm ein Jakob, so lange es außer ihm noch eine Potenz gibt, die es beansprucht, auch zur Gestaltung der Welt in voller Berechtigung zu gehören. Jakob lässt alles Reinmenschliche in unangetasteter Berechtigung, ja verkündet allem Reinmenschlichen gerade die höchste Bedeutung und Blüte, wenn es den von ihm zu bringenden Geist in sich aufnimmt und zur Verwirklichung hinauslebt. "Segnende Anerkennung" ist das einzige, um welches Jakob mit Esau ringt.

ותוכל AND HAST PREVAILED over them.

כי אם ישראל, the name Yisrael denotes the nation founded by “Yaakov.” Our sages are of two minds if the former name of the additional name is the principal name. Rabbi Zecharyah is of the opinion that the name Yaakov remained the principal name, whereas the majority opinion is that from this point on the name Yisrael became the principal name of Yaakov. (Bereshit Rabbah 78,3) The point of the angel telling him that he would henceforth not be called Yaakov but Yisrael was to tell him that G’d would change his name. This occurred when Yaakov came to Bet El. This is why we read in 35,10 ויקרא את שמו ישראל. The reason for the name change was revealed to Yaakov by the angel.

Das: עם אלקי׳ ועם אנשים scheint so viel zu sein wie בעיני אלקי׳ ואדם (ProRaw Hirsch on Genesis 32: 3, 4). Wenn Hoschea 12, 4 auf dieses Erlebnis hinblickt: בבטן עקב את אחיו ובאונו inשרה את אלקים וישר אל מלאך ויוכל בכה ויתחנן לו 111׳ so ist dort der Begriff שר seiner doppelten Abstammung gefasst. שרה von שרה und וישר von שור. Es heißt: "Im Mutterschoße hielt er dem Bruder die Ferse, und in seiner Vollkraft ward er der Überragende mit Gott (wie ׳קניתי איש את ד); einem Engel gegenüber ward er der Maßgebende (Bedingung setzende), so dass er weinend sich von ihm Gnade erflehte usw. Siehe oben Kap.17. Raw Hirsch on Genesis 32: 15.

כי שרית עם אלוקים, with the angel. He wrestled with you and could not overpower you to the extent of felling you.

ועם אנשים. With Lavan and Esau who intended to harm you and were unable to do so. He meant that exactly what had happened to Yaakov in his encounter with Lavan who had pursued him with hostile intent, would happen in his forthcoming encounter with Esau and his soldiers.

למה זה תשאל WHEREFORE IS IT THAT THOU DOST ASK [AFTER MY NAME]? — We have no fixed names; our names change, all depending upon the service we are commanded to carry out as the errand with which we are charged (Genesis Rabbah 78:4).

WHY IS IT THAT THOU DOST ASK AFTER MY NAME? The angel said: “There is no advantage to you in knowing my name for no one possesses the power and the capability other than G-d alone. If you will call upon me I will not answer you, nor will I save you from your trouble. However, I will now bless you, for so I am commanded.”⁷⁷Leviticus 8:35. But Scripture does not explain the contents of the blessing. That which our Rabbis have said⁷⁸Mentioned in Rashi, Verse 27. See also the explanatory note on this verse in my Hebrew commentary, p. 186. is most probable, namely that the angel, despite himself, conceded to him at that place the legitimacy of his father’s blessings, as Jacob did not wish to wait for him until he arrived at Beth-el.

הגידה נא שמך, which would describe your essence, your function, and how you would go about performing same. This would enable me to understand why you attacked me in the first place. I would then be able to do penitence for my sin, something I cannot do as long as I do not know what precisely my sin consists of.

הגידה נא שמך, "please tell me your name!" Although Jacob was aware that angels do not have fixed names, he asked him what this particular angel's name was at this particular time.

וישאל...הגידה נא שמך, for each angel has a name appropriate to his mission. This is what Isaiah meant when he said (Isaiah 40,26) לכולם בשם יקרא, “Who calls them each by name. ”We find names of angels spelled out in Daniel 9,21 והאיש גבריאל, as well as chapter 10,12 in Daniel כי אם מיכאל שרכם. Seeing that the angel had changed his name, Yaakov wanted to know the angel’s name in order to find out what this angel’s primary task was.

למה זה תשאל לשמי?, “why do you have to know my name?” The angel implies that knowing his “name” will be of no use to Yaakov at all. The reason is that he does not possess any powers of his own, he is only a tool in the hands of G’d, so much so that if Yaakov were ever to call upon him he would not even respond. What he was able to do however, was to give Yaakov a blessing. The reason he could do so was because G’d had commanded him to do so. The Torah did not spell out the text of the blessing. Our sages add that Yaakov thanked the angel for his blessing.

We do not have a set name. Our names keep changing... I.e., he was not angry when Yaakov asked this. [And how does Rashi know?] Because the angel asked Yaakov the same question.

Was fragst du mich nach meinem Namen? Wenn die Sonne aufgeht, dann erbleichen alle Namen vor, dem einen Einzigen, von dem es heißt יהיה ד׳ אחד ושמו אחד und es wird nur der einen Namen haben, der keinen Namen haben wollte, als die Menschen sprachen: נעשה לנו שם, und von dem Gott deshalb sprach: ואגדלה Er segnete ihn dort, ist doch jedenfalls eine räumliche Beschränkung. Es — .שמך ,scheint daher: Eben dort ward Jakob die segnende Anerkennung, wo er, an der Grenze mit der Wiederkehr in das jüdische Land der eigensten Entwickelung des jüdischen Geistes und der abrahamitischen Bestimmung zuwandert. So winkt nicht durch kosmopolitisches Aufgehen in die Völkerströmung seinen Sprößlingen die Anerkennung und der Segen, sondern שָם, gerade bei der vollendetsten Einkehr in die scheinbar isolierende Bestimmung, die der jüdische Boden für alle Zeiten trägt.

למה זה תשאל לשמי, “why are you asking for my name?” The angel informs Yaakov that there is no point in knowing his name; he explains that when people that have not seen one another ever, upon meeting, will extend greetings with one another and bless each other wishing each other well, and ask one another for their names, they justify this in the event that they wished to communicate with each other in the future. If they do not know one another’s name and address, how could they communicate with each other? Knowing the angel’s name, just as in the case of Manoach in Judges 13,17, is important only when such occasions will arise. The angel assures Yaakov that in this instance there is no need for this as he knows his name and address and will not forget it. Another interpretation of why the angel retorted to Yaakov’s question with a question of his own, instead of with an answer, though he complied with Yaakov’s request to bless him: the reason why angels do not like to reveal their names is to prevent human beings to make them swear an oath concerning the mission that they had fulfilled. And we also found that it is also written about Manoach to whom the angel says, "Why do you ask for my name? And it is wonderful" (Judges 13,18). Another interpretation: I asked what is your name in order to mention it in the name of the act, but what will my name be of any use to you? Why would you ask me?

?למה זה תשאל לשמי, our (angels) format does not in any way correspond and shed light on the level of our intelligence which cannot be explained in terms of language used by human beings. The angel confronting Manoach in Judges 13,18 summed this up in the single word: “פלאי,” it is concealed, [because it would only be misunderstood if put into words. Ed.] The angel’s activity reflects G’d’s will at the time. [Clearly, this implies that most angels perform their tasks ad hoc. Ed.]

?למה זה תשאל לשמי; a polite way of saying: “you do not need to know my name.” The same happened to Manoach in Judges 13,18 when he wanted to know the name of the angel who had announced that his wife would give birth to Shimshon. However, the difference there was that at the time Manoach asked he was still unaware that he was addressing an angel, thinking that he was dealing with a prophet, a human being. We do not really know why the angels keep their names secret. According to Bereshit Rabbah 78,4 the angel’s question meant that seeing each angel has a name assigned to him for each specific assignment he carries out on earth, there was no point in knowing his name as it would change before he would be given a new assignment. Rabbi Ami, quoting Abba Yossi, draws attention to two verses, one in Psalms 147,4 saying לכולם שמות יקרא, “He will call all of them by names,” and Isaiah 2,26 לכולם בשם קרא, “He calls all of them by name.” This appears to state that whereas the stars do not undergo name changes, angels names do. He uses the angel’s question to Manoach as proof that this is so. The angel answered Manoach that he did not know what his name would be on his next mission.

ויברך אותו שם, “he blessed him there.” In that same location Yaakov was not willing to wait until he would get to Beyt El to receive this blessing; therefore the angel spelled it out already now.

למה זה תשאל לשמי, "Why do you ask after my name?" Whereas it made sense that the angel asked Jacob's name seeing he intended to change it to Israel, or at least, to inform him of that impending change. Jacob's asking the angel for his name did not have such a purpose, however. The angel therefore wanted to know the reason for Jacob's enquiry. The angel may also simply have hinted that there was no point in asking him his present name as it was apt to be changed as soon as he had accomplished his present mission. He would only have to ask him again for his name on a future occasion.

ויברך אותו שם, apart from the fact that he had told him about his impending name change to Yisrael, explaining the reason for this, he gave him an additional blessing. The reason the verse ends with the word שם is that it is a reference to Bet El where G’d would confirm the name change.

There are some commentators who have explained the words “why do you ask for my name” as “seeing that I have been defeated, what is the pointed in your knowing my name? Usually the victor wants his own name to become known. The loser does not want his name known so as to suffer the minimum of embarrassment.

ויאמר לא אשלחך כי אם ברכתני, this teaches that the intellectual life-force within Yaakov’s body held on to the disembodied intellect represented by the “angel”. He (Yaakov) was not prepared to let go of the disembodied spirit he had embraced during this nocturnal encounter until this force had left an imprint on him which would not become dispelled as soon as he released the disembodied intelligence from his “embrace.” He insisted on attaining the intellectual level he had aspired to in an irreversible manner, not merely as a temporary spiritual-intellectual “high.”

ויאמר לא יעקב יאמר עוד שמך , remember that the name Yaakov has a connotation of “humiliation, degradation.” We encounter this when he was born when the Torah described him as holding on to his twin brother’s heel (Genesis 25,26). Such an activity as holding on to someone else’s heel is certainly creating an image of someone servile, someone in a degrading condition. After all, the heel is the very lowest part of the body. The name ישראל by contrast evokes the image of something superior. This is why the “angel” said: “you are entitled to be known by a name which conveys something lofty.” He gave as the reason for this change of name the fact that כי שרית עם אלו-הים ועם אנשים, that Yaakov’s intellectual life-force had proven to be equal to the intellect of disembodied spiritual beings even though his own intellect was still imprisoned within a body, This is the meaning of the words ועם אנשים. Actually, there had been no need for this word; if someone holds his own in a contest with divine forces he is most certainly understood to be even to or superior to any human contestant. The use of the words עם אנשים therefore adds a new dimension to our verse. Yaakov was very anxious to have confirmation that his own נפש השכלית, was on a par with that of disembodied spiritual creatures though his own spirit was still connected to his body.

הגידה נא שמך, he wanted confirmation of what the “angel” had said by being able to identify him by name. The name would give Yaakov a clue as to the essence of that spiritual force.
But the angel did not fulfill his request. He responded למה זה תשאל לשמי — that Yaakov did not need this information as he had already achieved a great deal and had risen to the level of disembodied heavenly spirits.
The Torah goes on with a report of the consequences of this encounter by writing על כן לא יאכלו בני ישראל את גיד הנשה אשר על כף הירך, “this is why the children of Israel are not to eat the displaced sinew of the hip-socket.” This means that seeing the נפש השכלית is meant to adjust to the norms of the disembodied intellect, the true Israelites are not to engage in activities which arouse the libido which is seated near the hip-socket. The meaning of the word “eat” here does not only mean the actual consumption of this part of animalistic tissue but also what it symbolizes, i.e. absorbing the philosophy it represents.

פנים אל פנים, face to face. Jacob's amazement was not due to the fact that he had had an encounter with an angel; he had previously encountered angels. What amazed him was that he had been in a confrontation with an angel. The word פנים אל פנים is a term used in warfare as we know from Kings II 14,8.

ויקרא יעקב....פניאל...פנים אל פנים. According to one of the commentaries which we quoted (verse 26) that the angel had assumed human form, this experience was something new for Yaakov. For the first time he had seen a divine being face to face while being awake. Adding to this the fact that this angel had twisted his hip joint out of shape and he had survived this he was amazed that he had survived such an encounter. This is why he used the expression פנים אל פנים. He added the words

Jakob erkennt in dem mit ihm Ringenden auch etwas Göttliches, Berechtigtes, von Gott Bestimmtes. "Bist du denn ein Dieb, ein Spieler" — lassen die Weisen Jakob den Gegner fragen — "dass du dich vor dem Morgen fürchtest?" "Nein, erwidert dieser, מלאך אני, "ich bin auch ein von Gott Gesendeter, aber so lange ich geschaffen, war noch die Zeit für mich nicht gekommen in den Gott verherrlichenden Hymnus einzustimmen bis jetzt, מיום שנבראתי לא הגיע זמני לומר שירה עד עכשיו". Esaus Genius ist auch ein von Gott gesendeter מלאך, aber seine Sendung wird von ihm nur erfüllt, wenn רב יעבר צעיר, wenn er die göttliche Sendung Jakobs huldigend anerkennt, nur dann ist er berufen, in den Gott verherrlichenden Hymnus der Zeiten einzustimmen, nur dann nimmt er als harmonischer Einklang seine Stelle ein in der Gott verherrlichenden Symphonie der Geschichte.

ותנצל נפשי, this is a statement Yaakov never made on other occasions when he had other visions. Seeing that we explained that the entire episode with the angel was a prophetic vision, the reason why he used the expression “face to face,” must be that the vision was so real to him that in his vision he reacted physically to the angel that appeared to him. If you were to consider this interpretation as unlikely, consider that we have been told that Moses spoke to G’d “face to face.” (Exodus 33,11 and again in Deuteronomy 5,4) the description “face to face” merely tells us about the realism involved in such prophetic encounters Moses experienced, as well as what the entire people experienced at the revelation at Mount Sinai when the mountain quaked, there was lightning and thunder, etc. Having experienced such an intense vision Yaakov understandably marvels at having survived such an experience, one in which he was totally involved, body and soul. The recollection of such intense experiences though having occurred in the form of visions, was strong enough to carry over into the affected people’s waking hours.

שם המקום פניאל, this name was retained for future generations. There is no difference between פניאל and פנואל. They are variations in the name of the same location. The letters י and ו are well known as interchangeable letters.

ויזרח לו השמש AND THE SUN SHONE UPON HIM— This is the expression that people use: “When we reached such-and-such a place the dawn broke upon us”. This is its literal sense. But the Midrash says that לו means, “for his needs” — to heal his lameness. Thus, too, you read in Scripture a similar metaphor (Malachi 3:20) “the sun of righteousness with healing in its wings”. The hours that it had set before its time for his sake when he left Beer-Sheba (cp. Genesis 18:11) it now rose before its time for his sake (Sanhedrin 75b).

והוא צולע על ירכו, now that the sun was shining he realised that he was walking with a limp, a belated discovery, just as when he discovered that he had spent a night in bed with Leah thinking that she was Rachel (29,25).

The sun shone upon him. This verse must be inverted — after he passed Penuel, still limping, the sun shone and healed him. Similarly, in the time to come the “sun” of the redemption will shine and heal the righteous.

כאשר עבר את פנואל, as he passed Pnu-el. Perhaps Jacob was the only one who called that place Pni-el instead of Pnu-el. We find the name Pnue-el also in Judges 8.

ויזרח לו השמש, an expression similar in principle to Samuel II 2,39 ויאור להם בחברון, “it became light for them in Chevron,” when Yaakov passed Penuel the sun had just risen. An aggadic explanation (Bereshit Rabbah 78,8) of the wording, based on the word לו, “for him,” is that the sun had a therapeutic effect on Yaakov’s limp. Rabbi Berechyah explains the wording to mean that whereas everyone in Yaakov’s retinue appreciated the sun for its light, Yaakov appreciated it for its therapeutic effect on his injury. Rabbi Hunna says whereas the heat of the sun’s rays had a therapeutic effect on Yaakov, it had a debilitating effect on Esau and his hordes. He quotes Maleachi 3 10-20 “For lo! The day is at hand, burning like an oven. The arrogant and all the doers of evil shall be straw, and the day that is coming-said the Lord of Hosts- shall burn them to ashes and leave of them neither stock nor boughs. But for you who revere My name a sun of victory shall rise, a healing” You shall go forth and stamp like stall-fed calves and you shall trample the wicked to a pulp for they shall be dust beneath your feet on the day I am preparing, said the Lord of Hosts.

ויזרח לו השמש כאשר עבר את פנואל, “the sun shone for him as son as he had passed Penuel.” The Torah means that the sun had risen already long before Yaakov reached Penuel. The reason why it took him so long to get there was that he now had a limp to contend with. Another interpretation of the words והוא צולע על ירכו, “he was limping on his thigh-joint,” is that he walked deliberately so slowly that onlookers did not even notice that he was limping. During the extra time it took Yaakov to reach Penuel the sun had already long risen and begun to shine. Only now did his limp become recognizable, due to the bright light of the sun.

Those hours that the sun prematurely set ... it prematurely rose for him. Rashi is answering the question: Even if we say that the sun shone for him [to heal him], did it shine only “for him”?

Vor zwanzig Jahren, bemerken die Weisen, als er auf die Wanderschaft gegangen war, war ihm an der Grenze des Heimatlandes die Sonne untergegangen, die ganze Zwischenzeit waren nächtliche Zustände, jetzt bei der Heimkehr ging sie ihm wieder auf — er war nicht geschlagen, nicht gebrochen, aber hinkend.

ויזרח לו השמש, “the sun shone for him.” In the In the Western hemisphere, the sun’s rays rise earlier and became stronger on a daily basis starting in the month of Tevet, until in the month of Tammuz the days again start to become shorter and the sun’s rays weaker. Our author tries to show how the season’s variations are hinted at in the words of the Torah here. The reason why the author does this is because he was troubled by the Torah in our verse making it appear as if the sun shone only for Yaakov and not the rest of the world. He uses the numerical value of the word: 36=לו, as the basis of this exegesis. [I have decided to omit the details of this astronomical part of his exegesis of this verse. Ed.]

והוא צלע AND HE LIMPED — He was limping when the sun rose.

והוא צולע על ירכו. When he passed Peniel he felt the injury as more painful and found himself forced to limp.

He was limping when the sun rose. Rashi is saying he was limping when the sun began to rise, but he was cured right afterward.

והוא צולע על ירכו, “and he was limping, i.e. dragging his feet.” He had not been able to leave Peduel before the sun was shining strongly and its healing rays enabled him to walk. An alternate exegesis: no one had noticed his limp until the sun shone. The grammatical construction of our verse would be parallel to Genesis 29,25 when the Torah writes: ויהי בבקר והנה היא לאה, “it was morning when he found out (Yaakov) that it was Leah (in bed with him)”.

גיד הנשה THE SINEW OF THE THIGH-VEIN — Why is its name called גיד הנשה? Because it sprang נשה) and rose from its proper position. The word has the meaning of “springing”. Other examples are: (Jeremiah 51:30) “Their strength sprang away (נשתה)” and (41:51) “for God hath made all my trouble spring away from me נַשַּׁנִי)".

על כן לא יאכלו, as a reminder of the heroism displayed by Yaakov, as well as a reminder of the miracle that G’d performed for him as a result of which he did not die.

We find in [statements of] the Rabbis, may their memory be blessed, that deep things, the comprehension of which are difficult, are compared to tendons; as Rashi explained in Parshat Yitro (Exodus 19:3), s.v., and tell the Children of Israel (he explained, "[Tell] to the males, matters as difficult as tendons"). And comprehension is called eating; as we find that about the four that entered the 'orchard,' it cites the verse, 'eat your fill of honey,' about investigation that is hidden from 'the eye of all the living.' And this commandment is a hint for the [future] generations to prevent Israel from hidden (mystical) investigations; as [Ben Sira] said, "You have no businesses in hidden things." For one should be concerned [about this], lest their minds be destroyed and they come to heresy. As the many will not have the wisdom to understand the secrets properly, because their minds travel through the muddied valley. [This is] because the vanities of this world and its pleasures confuse the mind of man. And the hint in the prevention from eating the sciatic tendon for the generations is to be a commemoration that God prevented them from the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, such that they not feed their minds things as difficult as tendons - as he [injured] the hollow of Jacob's thigh. And if this setback temporarily occurred to the perfect Jacob when he veered a little from the even path, what will the 'hyssop of the wall' (average people) - whose primary occupation is with the vanities of this world and its pleasures - do? Therefore they should not be occupied with hidden things, except for the special few, like R. Shimon Bar Yochai and his likeness - who become repulsed by, and renounce, the vanities of this world. 

על כן לא יאכלו בני ישראל, in order to ensure that the damage inflicted to Yaakov’s offspring as predicted by the angel should be kept to a minimum as long as they remind themselves of the symbolic meaning of that injury suffered by Yaakov during his nocturnal encounter with this angel. [I believe that even commentators who concentrate on the plain meaning of the text, such the ones whose commentaries I am translating in these volumes, feel free to treat the text allegorically when the narrative of the Torah itself appears pointless unless we understand it in historical terms, offering moral and ethical teachings and warnings of long term significance. Ed.] Alternatively, the moral lesson is that just as the gid hanashe is totally devoid of taste, does not appeal to the palate, so that consuming it would not provide the sinner with any kind of gratification, we are taught not to second-guess G’d’s legislation by treating this commandment as not important.

על כן לא יאכלו בני ישראל את גיד הנשה. This is why the children of Israel do not eat the disjointed sinew, etc. This sinew was dislocated from its holy origin and became subject to dominance by the קליפה ["external forces" in the scheme of the emanations, Ed.]. G'd forbade anything which has thus become defiled wherever it appears. There is a mystical element in this. This sinew does not have a taste, an allusion to its originating in the "external forces." The reason is that it had been uprooted from a holier source.

על כן לא יאכלו בני ישראל, the children of Yaakov adopted this prohibition for themselves in commemoration of their father whose thigh muscle had been injured. They in turn commanded their children to abstain from eating this part of any animal. This continued until the Torah was given and it became law. It reminds us of the descendants of Yonadav ben Rechev who faithfully adhered to the clan’s founding father’s injunction not to drink wine (Jeremiah 35,6) in honour of the oath they swore to their forefather. They are described as loyalists par excellence in the Book of Chronicles. Moses recorded the custom of the Israelites not to eat this organ as one of the 613 commandments. Although the Torah does not generally consider it necessary to justify G’d’s legislation with a reason, in this case, since this law had been observed as a Jewish tribal custom for so many hundreds of years prior to the giving of the Torah, we are told how the custom which became enshrined in Torah law originated.

על כן לא יאכלו בני ישראל את גיד הנשה, “this is why in the future the Jewish people would not eat the disjointed sinew.” The Jews not eating this sinew are comparable to sons who make a point of fasting on the anniversary of their father’s death. Another way of looking at this law: In the future, the Jewish people would be commanded not to eat this sinew in order that they should remain aware of the miracle which had occurred when a mortal man, their ancestor Yaakov, had been able to prevail against a celestial force trying to wrestle him to the ground.

עד היום הזה bezieht sich nicht auf den Schreibenden, sondern auf den Lesenden, so lange dies gelesen wird, also: immer. So von Moses Grab ולא ידע איש את קבורתו עד היום הזה (B M. 34, 6 .5)

על כן לא יאכלו בני ישראל, “therefore the Children of Israel to this day do not eat the thigh muscle, etc.” the words על כן here mean: ”as a permanent reminder of” the miracle that had saved their founding father in his contest with the angel who had only been able to inflict a minor injury on him, instead of killing him as he had intended. The undertaking is similar to a person who after suffering for long periods from headaches or and pains in the region of his heart, vows not to eat the head or the heart of an animal forthwith, as a sign of gratitude for having been healed. An alternate interpretation. The words על כן, mean: “as a result of this,” i.e. as a result of having narrowly escaped death as a result of having remained exposed to danger alone during the night, the Israelites learned that this is not the correct way to behave at night and alone. Abstaining from eating the thigh muscle is the visible reminder of the fact that this lesson had been internalised by the people as an inadmissible way to behave. Yaakov’s wives and children accepted part of the responsibility for their leader’s injury by having allowed him to cross the river alone at night and thus having exposed him to danger. This is why G–d forbade them (his descendants the Jewish people) to eat this part of the animal. They should be meticulous in observing the commandment to give people safe conduct. This is why already Yaakov was commanded to give Joseph safe conduct on his fateful mission. (Genesis 37,14) [where he accompanied him part of the way where he might be exposed to danger by the Canaanites. Ed.]

It is to be a commemoration for them that their forefather fought with the angel, and [the latter] could not subdue him. And so [the angel] pressed him on the hollow of his thigh, in the place where there is the the sciatic nerve. And it is a commemoration of glory and greatness.

על כן לא יאכלו, “therefore it is appropriate that the Israelites do not eat, etc.;” this construction is parallel to Isaiah 10,7: והוא לא כן ידמה, “but it does not seem like this to him;” in other words: it would be right and proper to punish the Israelites not to eat that particular sinew as they should not have allowed their founding father to be exposed to hostile forces at night. Yaakov’s sons were physically strong, and they should have been at hand to assist their father if the need arose to do so. Seeing that they failed to do this, the blame for the injury sustained by their father was theirs. From now on they would have learned their lesson and would practice the commandment to accompany their father, or for that matter, any older and wiser person, especially at night. Yaakov himself set an example when he accompanied his son Joseph part of the way on a mission which he had sent him on, and which was potentially dangerous. (Genesis 37,14) A different approach to the verse above: as a result of their father Yaakov having stood up to the protective celestial force of Esau, his sons stopped eating the part of the body that the angel had been able to injure. They did this out of a feeling of pride in their founding father. A third approach to this verse: due to their father Yaakov having sustained an injury, his descendants voluntarily decided not to eat the part of the body of an animal that had been injured in their father’s body. This has to be understood better by the use of a parable; a person suffered from a headache or from pains in a different part of his body. As a reminder of that pain he decides not to eat that part of the body of an animal as a symbol of his having been healed from that pain, so that it (abstention) would serve as a remedy for them (preventive medicine) in the future. We have a Baraitah in Chulin 101 which relates that people came to Rabbi Yehudah who had expressed the opinion that the prohibition not to eat that part of an animal also applied to animals that were altogether forbidden to be eaten, questioning his interpretation by citing the fact that only the descendants of Israel were forbidden to eat this part of an animal, and that the Jews had never been called “Children of Israel” until they had been given the Torah at Mount Sinai. He answered them that it is true that this custom did not become law until the Torah was given, but it had been observed already earlier. It was recorded here only in order for us to understand the reason behind this prohibition. Prior to the legislation of dietary laws at Mount Sinai, Yaakov’s descendants were allowed to eat also the meat of animals that were outlawed at Mount Sinai.

את גיד הנשה, our sages in Chulin 91 explain the name of this muscle or ligament (sciatic nerve) as due to the fact that it is apt to move from its original location, from the spoon shaped joint to which it is attached.

נשֶה, Wurzel von נשים, iFrauen, und נשה iGläubiger, scheint als Grund- bedeutung: sich, oder etwas von dem Seinigen in die Macht eines andern ge- geben haben, in die Macht eines andern geraten sein, auszudrücken. Daher נשה ב־: mit einem Teil seines Gutes in der Macht eines andern sein, etwas an ihn zu fordern haben. Was נשה widerstandslos ausdrückt, das bezeichnet, dem צ-Laut gemäß, נצה mit Widerstand, also: der Widerstand gegen eine Unterordnung, oder das Streben, Widerstehendes unterzuordnen, d. i. Streit. Daher vielleicht auch נצה: der Flügel, als das durch Widerstand gegen die Luft fortbewegende Organ. Ebenso מצה als Gegensatz zu חמץ. Im חמץ- Prozesse treten alle bisher zu einheitlicher Masse verbundenen Teile in Gegensatz und Widerstand zu einander; die Unterdrückung dieses im Entstehen begriffenen Widerstandes ist: מצה. Hat der eine der streitenden Gegensätze sein Ziel erreicht, so ist es נצח der Sieg (vergl. נוע und nlf). Auf die Einbuße eines geistigen Gutes übertragen, heißt נשה nicht eigentlich vergessen, sondern: aufgeben, die Hoffnung auf Wiedererlangung aufgeben. Von אשה, Frau im Singular ist nicht נשה, sondern איש die Wurzel כי מאיש לקחה, denn im Singular erscheint sie im Verhältnis zum Manne als Gattin zum Gatten, ist sie nicht eine widerstandslos Preisgegebene, sondern ein Korrelat, eine Ergänzung des Mannes, ihm paritätisch gleichgestellt. Im Plural jedoch tritt das öffentliche Verhältnis des weiblichen Geschlechtes, somit als dasjenige hervor, das von seinen Rechten an das männliche abgegeben, dessen Rechte durch das männliche mit vertreten werden. Nur im öffentlichen Leben, in der Pluralität, erscheinen sie als die Machtloseren, Schwächeren, aber sie sind נשים, die "Gläubiger" des Männlichen.

אשר על כף הירך, the only part of the sinew prohibited by Biblical injunction is the part directly attached to the hip joint.. What is above and below is forbidden by Rabbinic decree. Similarly, the exterior sinew is also only forbidden by Rabbinic decree (Chulin 91) The prohibition applies equally to domesticated beasts, free roaming beasts, as well as to the שליל, the as yet unborn embryo. The prohibition applies to both the right and the left hind leg of the animal, even though the sages are agreed that only one of Yaakov’s sciatic nerves was injured as seems clear from the words (singular) “he dislocated the sinew of the thigh-vein.” The halachic ruling follows the view of Rabbi Yossi that although only one sinew was injured they are both forbidden to be eaten. The fatty tissue on top of these sinews is also forbidden as a Rabbinic injunction.

גיד הנשה wäre somit: die Sehne der Unterordnung, der Widerstandslosigkeit, Machtlosigkeit, somit nicht die anatomische, sondern die historische Bezeichnung der Spannader. Durch Losreißung derselben hat Jakobs Gegner dem durch sie an das Bein gehefteten Hüftmuskel die Kraft genommen, das Bein zu regieren, diesen Verlust hat Jakob durch seinen Gegner erlitten, in dieser Beziehung hat er ihm nicht Widerstand leisten können. Die Sehne ist da, der Muskel ist da, das Bein ist da, aber der Gebrauch ist gehindert. Jedoch nicht auf ewig. נשה ist ein nur zeitweiliges Aufgeben, kein ewiger Verlust. Jakob ist ein נשֶה, hat einst eine große Rechnung mit שרו של עשו abzumachen.

Wenn aber die Erinnerung an dieses Ereignis für alle Zeiten durch das Genussverbot der Spannader unter Jakobs Nachkommen festgehalten werden soll, so kann sicherlich nicht die Absicht sein, dass alle seine Nachkommen von der Tatsache Kunde erhalten, es habe ihr Stammvater in Folge eines Ringkampfes gehinkt, eben so wenig wie das Chamezverbot uns nur darüber für alle Zeiten au fait halten soll, welches Brot unsere Väter bei ihrem Auszuge aus Ägypten gegessen. Beide Tatsachen sind an sich von so geringfügiger Bedeutung, dass deren Verewigung durch ein göttliches Gesetz nur dann erklärlich wird, wenn sich, wie es in der Tat ist, daran Wahrheiten von tiefeingreifenden Folgen für unsere Gesamtbestimmung knüpfen, die eben durch ein solches Genussverbot ihren Ausdruck und ihre ewige Neubelebung gewinnen sollen.

In einer solchen Bedeutsamkeit haben auch die Weisen dieses Verbot aufgefasst, indem sie die Stelle: Jesaias 9. 7f.: דבר שלח אדני ביעקב ונפל בישראל וידעו העם םימקש הנבנ תיזגו ולפנ םינבל רמאל בבל לדגבו הואגב ןורמש בשויו םירפא ולכ גדעו וארזים נחליף וישגב ד׳ וגוי והעם לא שב עד המכהו ואת ד׳ צבאו׳ לא דרשו. "Ein Wort hat Gott einst an Jakob gesendet und es hat in Israel seine Stelle ge funden, das soll das Volk ganz kennen lernen, Ephraim und Samariens Bewohner, die so stolz und hochmütig sind zu sprechen: (eigentlich: in ihrem Stolz und Hochmut zu sprechen): Ziegel sind gefallen, Quadern bauen wir auf, Sykomoren sind gefällt, mit Zedern ersetzen wir. Und während Gott Rezins Feinde usw. kehrt das Volk doch nicht zurück zu dem, der es in Wahrheit schlägt, und Gott Zebaoth haben sie in allem dem nicht gesucht", — also erläutern: דבר שלח ד׳ ביעקב זה גיד הנשה ונפל בישראל שפשט איסורו בכל ישראל (Chulin 91a.). Das Wort, das Gott an Jakob gesandt, auf welches der Prophet hier hinweist, ist das Spannaderverbot (es war dies ein tatsächlich an Jakob gesendetes Wort), es hat in Israel seine Stätte gefunden, d. h. das Verbot in Israel Platz gegriffen.

Nach allem diesem dürfte die Bedeutung dieses Verbotes nicht zweifelhaft bleiben. Nicht zu besiegen und nicht niederzuwerfen vermag Esaus Genius Jakob während des ganzen nächtlichen Kampfes, wohl aber ihm die Sehnen zu durchschneiden, ihn an dem Gebrauch seiner natürlich ihm zustehenden materiellen Kräfte zu hindern. Hinkend nur, nicht auf beiden Füßen stehend, ohne festen Stand und Gang auf Erden, schreitet Jakob durch die Geschichte. Und diese irdische Haltlosigkeit ist notwendig, um Esau endlich die Augen zu öffnen. Stünde Jakob gleich Esau an der Spitze seiner vierhundert Reisigen, seine Unbesiegbarkeit wäre nie der Gottesfinger in der Geschichte geworden. Darum sollen auch die Söhne Jakobs, (der ja eben durch diese materielle Schwäche und in ihr "Israel", der Fingerzeig für die allein obsiegende Gottesmacht sein soll), "diese Sehne der Unterordnung und materiellen Schwäche nicht essen", es soll ihnen, so oft sie sich an den Tisch setzen, aus dem Wanderbuch ihres Lebens die Mahnung entgegentreten, dass sie auf diese Sehne, auf die der Unterordnung unter Esau verfallende Kraft, heiter Verzicht leisten, sich mit ihrem Dasein und dessen Erhaltung nicht auf sie hingewiesen, und etwa deshalb weniger geschützt und zum Gange durch die Zeiten weniger gesichert fühlen sollen, weil sie nicht wie Esau mit dem Schwerte gerüstet, ja nicht einmal festen Schrittes auf Erden auftreten. Für Jakob-Israel liegt in anderem, höherem, nicht von Esau zu schwächendem die Kraft. Wenn Jakob fällt, fällt es nicht, weil es an materieller Macht Esau nicht gleichkommt, sondern weil es nicht verstanden, sich den Schutz seines Gottes zu erhalten. Wenn Israel steht, steht es nicht, weil eine feste materielle Stütze, sondern weil sein Gott es auf Adler- flügeln seiner Allmacht trägt. Das ist das Wort, das an Jakob gesandt worden und seine ewige Beherzigung in Israel finden sollte, das ist das Wort, dessen voller, ganzer Inhalt dem Volke zum Bewusstsein kommen soll, das, wenn es sich geschlagen sieht, die Ursache seiner Kalamität nicht in Gott, sondern darin sucht, dass es sich bisher nicht hinreichend mit materieller Schutzwehr vorgesehen, und statt durch Rückkehr zu Gott seine Zukunft zu sichern, in nichtigem Selbstgefühl spricht: was von Ziegeln zusammengefallen, bauen wir mit Quadern auf, Weiden konnte man umhauen, Zedern wird man nicht!

Vier göttliche Institutionen zählt das Buch שבת :בראשית und מילה ,קשת und גיד הנשה; was die ersten beiden für die Gesamtmenschheit bedeuten, das sind die beiden letzten für den engeren jüdischen Kreis. שבת sichert die geistig sittliche Bestimmung der Menschheit, מילה Israels. קשת ist das Wahrzeichen für die Geschichte der Menschheit, גיד הנשה für die jüdische Geschichte. Die vom Menschen ausgehende sittliche Tat und das von Gott dem Menschen werdende Geschick, diese beiden Seiten bilden aber die Summe alles Einzeln- und Gesamtdaseins auf Erden.