Komentarz do Rodzaju 35:38

קום עלה ARISE: GO UP [TO BETHEL] — Because you have delayed to fulfil your vow to sacrifice to me at Bethel you have been punished by this trouble of your daughter coming upon you (Genesis Rabbah 81:2).

GO UP TO BETH-EL AND ABIDE THERE, AND MAKE THERE AN ALTAR. I do not know the significance of the expression, and abide there. Now it is possible that G-d commanded him to abide there at first in order to purify the camp from the idols taken from Shechem or from the dead they had touched, similar to, And encamp ye without the camp seven days,¹⁷⁶Numbers 31:19. Said to the soldiers who returned from the war against the Midianites. since they had not yet been commanded concerning the Waters of Sprinkling,¹⁷⁷Ibid., 19:17-19. Used in purification from the defilement of touching a dead body. and afterwards they were to make the altar. But Jacob was zealous in observing the commandment to be purified before he came to Beth-el. It may be that Jacob’s words, And let us arise, and go up to Beth-el,¹⁷⁸Verse 3 here. actually preceded the purification mentioned in the previous verse. And perhaps the command, and abide there, means that he was to direct his thought to cleaving to G-d.¹⁷⁹See Ramban, Deuteronomy 11, for further elucidation of this matter.

ושב שם. An invitation to prepare himself mentally and spiritually before beginning to build the altar that he had in mind to erect. This corresponds to what our sages have described as being the manner in which they prepared for prayer and subsequently unwound before pursuing mundane activities. According to Berachot 30 they spent an hour “gearing up” before commencing their prayers and then spent an hour unwinding before going about the business of earning their daily bread.

קום עלה בית אל, "Arise and proceed to Bet El, and settle there." The reason G'd said that Jacob should settle there though Bet El is in the land of the Canaanites is to reassure Jacob that he had nothing to fear from the local population.

ויאמר אלוקים, an angel appeared to him while he was at Shechem and told him to proceed to Bet El, and to redeem his vow there. Regarding the words of the angel: ושב שם, “and settle down there!,” this did not mean that Yaakov was to settle there permanently, but that he was to remain there long enough to build the house of G’d which he had undertaken to do as part of his original vow. The angel on this occasion hinted that Yaakov’s “dream” with the ladder had in fact been more than a dream, it had been the first vision of the Divine he had experienced. The incident with Dinah’s rape and the subsequent upheaval had delayed Yaakov’s progress in the direction of his father’s home. Yaakov’s having built himself a house in Sukkot and his purchase of real estate had given the impression that he intended to settle in that vicinity permanently. His duty at that time had been to proceed to Bet El and to pay his vow of 34 years ago. He was supposed to proceed directly in the direction of his father’s home without allowing himself to be distracted on the way. Having failed to do this, G’d punished him with the incident involving Dinah. Even though we explained that Yaakov’s punishment was due to his having experienced fear in spite of repeated assurances by G’d that He would be with him, this delay he had allowed himself was an additional reason for his being punished.

ושב שם ועשה שם מזבח, “and settle there, and erect an altar there.” Nachmanides writes that he does not understand the meaning of the words ושב שם, but he considers it possible that the meaning was that Yaakov should establish a temporary residence at Beyt El before proceeding to erect the altar mentioned in the second half of the verse. The purpose of the altar would be to cleanse themselves of all the ritual impurities connected with various types of idolatry, or the state of defilement incurred through contact with the slain people of Shechem. This is based on the verse (Numbers 31,19) “and you encamp outside the encampment for seven days.” This was necessary as the legislation for such defiled persons to sprinkle water laced with the ashes of the red heifer on themselves, to purify themselves before they could re-enter the camp. had not yet been given. Perhaps G’d commanded Yaakov to shift his focus to matters of a religious nature before building the altar at Beyt El.

ויאמר אלוקים אל יעקב קום עלה בית אל ושב שם, G’d said to Yaakov: “rise and move to Bet-El and settle down there.” The meaning of the word ושב, in this instance is “let your mind come to rest.” He was to erect an altar to G’d there when he had recovered from his disturbed frame of mind. The fact that G’d appeared to him would contribute to Yaakov’s recovering his peace of mind.

Because you lingered on your journey you have been punished... [Rashi knows this] because otherwise, why did Hashem need to command him, “Arise, go up [to Beis Eil]”? Yaakov had already vowed to do this! Perforce, Hashem was telling him: Go up quickly and linger no longer. But Yaakov was not punished for lingering in Lavan’s house, because the vow went into effect only when he began to return [home]. For it is written [when he made his vow], “And if I return in peace...” (28:21).

Das vorangehende Ereignis hatte gezeigt, wie das Zusammenwohnen mit dem kanaanitischen Landeseinwohner die Jakobsfamilie gefährdete. Es hätte auch Jakob wohl nicht sich in solcher Nähe derselben niederlassen sollen, hätte vor allem die Stätte aufsuchen sollen, wo er beim Ausgang aus väterlichem Hause den Grundstein zu seiner Zukunft gelegt und dabei das Gelübde seines Lebens getan, und hätte dann die Heimat aufsuchen sollen, die seine Eltern und Großeltern bereits für die ruhige Entfaltung des abrahamitischen Familienlebens geeignet gefunden hatten, und wo deren geachtetes Andenken auch ihn und die Seinigen schützend umfangen konnte. Zu beiden wird er hier veranlasst. Er zieht zuerst nach Bethel und dann nach Mamre-Kirjatharba- Chebron. —

קום עלה בית אל, “arise and go to BetEl!” Rashi explains that Yaakov was commanded to keep the vow he had made at the time when he had the dream with the ladder. G-d implied that if he had not delayed keeping that vow the problem with Dinah would not have befallen him. If you were to argue that Rashi himself, when commenting on Yaakov presenting only eleven of his children before Esau because he was afraid that Esau might violate her, was punished for having failed to seize the opportunity that she might bring him back to the faith of his father? How does this tally with what he writes here? It tallies absolutely! She could not have become the victim of Sh’chem if Esau would have expressed a desire for her. [I do not see a problem at all. If Yaakov thought he had to protect her from his own brother, why was Dinah not chaperoned and allowed to leave the house on her own and roam amongst Canaanites?Surely this was an additional act of neglect by her father, who was punished here for this act of neglect. Ed.]

לא-ל הנראה אליך, a reference to what he saw in his dream when G’d appeared to him to be standing on top of the ladder (28,13). At this juncture, the angel addressing him told him to build there an altar to the attribute of G’d Who had appeared to him at that location. The reason for the angel adding: בברחך, “when you were fleeing, etc.,” was a reminder to him that at that time he had been all alone and that G’d had given him His assurance that He would look after him and would bring him back to the land of Canaan. Seeing that G’d had kept His promise, it was now Yaakov’s turn to keep his vow.

ועשה שם מזבח לא-ל הנראה אליך בברחך, in order to give thanks to G’d Who has kept His promise which He gave you on that occasion. We have a long standing tradition that when one passes a location where one had once experienced G’d’s help in a clearly supernatural format one is to recite a special benediction giving thanks to G’d for having done so, even though the event may have taken place a long time ago. (Berachot 54).

ושב שם, bleibe dort, lasse dich dort eine zeitlang häuslich nieder: wohl, um sich und die Seinigen ganz mit dem Geiste zu durchdringen, den die Bedeutung dieser Stelle und die an sie sich knüpfenden Erinnerungen so sehr zu wecken geeignet waren.

The meaning could also be that G'd told Jacob to settle in Bet El in preference to his present location near Shechem. He should not settle anywhere until he had built an altar at the site he had experienced the vision of the ladder.

ועשה שם מזבח. Er hatte dort eine מצבה zur Erinnerung an das von Gott ihm dort Gewordene errichtet, hatte aber gelobt, die von Gott zu erhoffende Selbständigkeit dazu zu verwenden, diesen Denkstein in ein "Haus Gottes", d. h. in eine Stätte menschlichen Strebens und Schaffens umzuwandeln, das zum Ziele hat, der Gegenwart Gottes auf Erden würdig zu werden. Die Erfüllung dieses Gelöbnisses heißt: einen מזבח bauen, wo bis jetzt nur eine מצבה stand. Und das Ganze heißt: an der Stätte der Gottesoffenbarung sein Haus bauen und dabei einen Altar errichten, heißt: ושב שם ועשה שם מזבח לאל הנראה אליך der מזבח neben dem Hause (vergl. Kap.28. 17. f Kap.38, 20).

הנכר [PUT AWAY] THE STRANGE [GODS] —which you have in your possession from the spoil of Shechem.

אלוהי הנכר, which they had looted from Shechem.

הסירו את אלוהי הנכר, which you have taken from Shechem. Even though the adherents of these idols had already disowned them, (the surviving females of the city of Shechem), and we know from Avodah Zarah 43, and 52 that such items are subsequently permitted to Jews, Yaakov commanded his household to get rid of them before proceeding to Bet El. He wanted all his people to mentally completely dissociate themselves from anything connected wit items formerly used in idolatrous pursuits.

הסירו את אלוהי הנכר, "Remove the foreign gods!" Seeing that Jacob was about to leave the present location he was afraid that perhaps someone would take along trinkets which had served the people of Shechem as idols. Since Jacob's entourage did not include idol worshippers of the local population there had not been anyone who could neutralise these gods before they had come into the tents of Jacob's camp. Once that happened there is no way a Jew can neutralise these gods except by destroying them completely.

אל ביתו, to his children.

הסירו את אלוהי הנכר, “remove the alien deities!” These were the various images captured as part of the loot of the town of Shechem which the Torah mentioned as described already by Rashi. In spite of the fact that such artifacts were permissible for use by people prior to the Torah having been given seeing that they had undergone a process of involuntary abandonment by their owners which disqualified them from further use as idols, (Avodah Zarah 52), Yaakov commanded the members of his household to remove these former idols and to sanctify themselves in order for them to qualify to serve G’d. This is what is implied in the words: “let us arise and go to Bet-El.” He meant that he would offer a sacrifice there to G’d. Yaakov based himself on a concept found in Kohelet 4,17: שמור רגלך כאשר תלך אל בית אלוקים, “watch your step when you are on the way to the House of the Lord.”

נֵכָר, das nie für sich allei in der Bedeutung wie נכרי, sondern stets in Verbindung mit einem Stat. constr. vorkommt: אלהי הנכר ,בן הנכר. usw. scheint nicht adjektivisch der Fremde, sondern ein Substant. abstr.: die Fremde zu sein, und zwar sowohl das Ausland im Gegensatz zum jüdischen Lande, als die nichtjüdische Welt und das nichtjüdische Wesen im Gegensatz zur Judenheit und zum Judentum zu bedeuten. Nur einmal in Nehem. 13, 30 heißt es: וטהרתים מכל נכר und scheint dort die entfernten נשים נכריות zu bezeichnen. Es dürfte jedoch auch dort: von allem Ausländischen, allem unjüdischen Wesen bedeuten.

הסירו את אלוהי הנכר, “remove the alien deities!” This was required in order to avoid giving the impression that prayers or sacrifices were intended for them.

ותטהרו AND PURIFY YOURSELVES of idol-worship.

ואל כל אשר לו, to his men and maidservants.

והטהרו, “and become ritually clean!” The verse teaches us that sin itself is called ritual impurity. We have a similar verse in Ezekiel 20,7 where the prophet warns his compatriots ובגלולי מצרים אל תטמאו, “and do not defile yourselves by committing the kind of sins committed by the Egyptians.” On the other hand, anyone who abandons sin is described as ritually pure, as we know from Leviticus 16,30 מכל חטאתיכם לפני ה’ תטהרו, “you will become cleansed (ritually pure) from all your sins against G’d.” Another verse expressing a similar sentiment is found in Joshua 22,17 המעט לנו את עון פעור אשר לא הטהרנו ממנו, “is it perhaps not enough to have committed the sin of Pe-or from which we have not yet been cleansed (completely)?” King David also mentioned such a thought when he said (Psalms 51,9) “Remove my sin by means of hyssop until I am pure.” In verse 4 of the same psalm he said: ”wash me thoroughly of my iniquity so that I may be purified from my sin.”

Avodah Zarah 43 teaches that when one forces a Gentile to renounce his idol or even that belonging to a friend of his, such renunciation is legally valid. Once the idol has become the possession of a Jew, the only way it can be neutralised is by utterly destroying it. The Talmud distinguishes between adult Gentiles and children, however. The reason Jacob or the brothers did not force the surviving women of Shechem to neutralise these gods may have been that those women were halachically in the same category as children, i.e. that their actions had no validity in law. It is also possible that the sons of Jacob had simply not been careful to differentiate between different kinds of the loot. When they examined it at home it was already too late to do anything about neutralising these objects and making them usable for a Jew. Some of these idols may even have been hidden within other larger vessels which the sons of Jacob had captured. Another possibility is that the gods which had been neutralised in time somehow became mixed with others which had not.

והטהרו והחליפו שמלתיכם, ähnlich dem ויקדש את העם ויכבסו שמלתם .B. M .2 19.14. Das Hinaufziehen zu der Offenbarungsstätte des Vaters in Bethel war für die Jakobsfamilie, was für ihre Urenkel die Versammlung am Sinai war.

והחליפו שמלתיכם, “Change your garments!” because they were worn when engaging in idol worship.

והחליפו שמלותיכם AND CHANGE YOUR GARMENTS — lest you have in your possession a vestment that has been employed in idolatrous worship (Genesis Rabbah 81:3).

הסירו את אלוהי הנכר, the silver and gold the sons of Yaakov had looted from Shechem had idolatrous images engraved upon them, as had the various pieces of jewelry they had taken with them from there. Even though Yaakov’s sons had not taken these items in order to worship them but in order to melt them down and to put them to other uses, i.e. to use the melted down gold and silver, [something halachically acceptable as the idolatrous nature of these artifacts had been nullified through the melt down, Ed.] Yaakov did not want his children or household to benefit from anything which had once served idolatrous purposes although it was no longer recognisable as something that had once served such a purpose. Moses is on record as expressing similar sentiments when he said (Deuteronomy 7,25) “do not covet the silver or gold which was upon them.” (after the idols themselves had already been destroyed) He repeated this sentiment even more strongly in Deuteronomy 13,18 when he said “no part of the banned property may adhere to your hand, etc.” [these injunctions were especially called for after the Israelites had not only been allowed to loot the property of the former owners, but other Torah legislation such as even the eating of pig had been temporarily suspended during the years when the conquered the land of Canaan and had not yet settled there and received their tribal heritage. Ed.]

והחליפו שמלותיכם, “and change your garments!” From this we learn that both they and their garments had become defiled through contact with idolatrous images, or through contact with the bodies of the people who had been slain in Shechem.

Jacob instructed the members of his household to purify themselves because contact with idols defiles a person. Maimonides writes in Hilchot Avot Ha-Tumah chapter six that any אב הטומאה, source of serious impurity, which confers impurity through touch or through carrying same, not only confers impurity on any person who touches same but also on anyone touching or carrying objects that have been in touch with the person who is אב הטומאה. Accordingly, Jacob was quite right when he instructed his people to purify themselves and their clothing even if not they personally, but only their clothing had been in contact with the idolatrous trinket. Jacob was also very precise in referring to שמלותיכם, your garments. He meant that the garments worn by the people of Shechem at the time they were slain had to be purified also.

והטהרו; they needed to purify themselves as contact with idolatrous objects confers ritual impurity on the person who had been in touch with it.

You may ask that there should have been no need to change clothing seeing that clothing could have become defiled only through direct contact with the idolatrous object, an אב הטומאה, and even if these garments had been in direct contact with the idolatrous object they could not have conferred impurity on a human being seeing they themselves were not primary sources of impurity. When we read in Psalms 106,28: ויאכלו מזבחי מתים, "they ate sacrifices offered to the dead," the word "dead" is understood to be a reference to idolatry. Idolatry and the dead are equated halachically for the purpose of the transference of impurity. Chulin 3 states that the sword of a slain person is of the same degree of impurity as the person who has been slain with it. [normally it would be of a lesser degree, seeing it is not the original source of that impurity, Ed.] According to Maimonides Hilchot Tum-at met chapter chapter 5 the example of "sword" is applicable to any of the objects that were attached to the slain person at the time he died, including his garments. According to the foregoing the garments of the people of Shechem then were capable of transferring impurity to human beings just as the sword which kills a person.

והחליפו שמלותיכם, your garments too have become contaminated by the same ritual impurity so that you have to put on others. Alternatively, what is meant are the garments of the people of Shechem which were part of the loot.

האלה THE TEREBINTH — a kind of tree that bears no fruit.

AND JACOB HID THEM. An idol and the things that pertain to it are not in the category of objects that require burial and for which burial suffices, but instead they are to be crumbled up and scattered to the wind or thrown into the sea.¹⁸⁰Abodah Zarah 43b. And if so, why did Jacob bury the idols when they should have been destroyed? It appears to me that the sons of Jacob did not take the idols and the things that pertain to them from Shechem until they had been nullified and had thus become permissible to them, for a heathen can nullify an idol against its worshipper’s will,¹⁸¹Ibid., 52b. thus making it permissible to them. Jacob, however, for the sake of the purity of holy things, commanded that they remove it so that they should be fit to worship G-d and sacrifice before Him, just as He had commanded them concerning immersion and the changing of garments.¹⁸²Verse 2 here. Burial was thus sufficient for the idols, and therefore he hid them under the terebinth in a location which will neither be tilled nor sown.

ויטמון אותם יעקב, he buried them instead of destroying them. Seeing that they no longer had the halachic status of being idolatrous artifacts they did not need to be destroyed

ויטמן, he did not leave them above ground so as not to become the indirect cause of someone retrieving the items and using them in an idolatrous fashion.

ויטמן אותם, “he buried them there.” The reason that he did not burn these idols [which would have eradicated them, Ed.] was to demonstrate to the Canaanite population that they had violated the covenant G’d made with Noach after the deluge not to practice idolatry. Nachmanides writes that the entourage of Yaakov had not taken as loot or for any other reason, any idolatrous images, nor any chattels that had been used in idolatry so that these would have had to be destroyed utterly. They had not taken anything from Shechem until these items had first completely lost their erstwhile function as objects prohibited because of their having been used in the context of idolatry. When an idolater destroys his deities even under the influence of superior force, i.e. unwillingly, the fact that he destroyed it is sufficient to deprive them of any halachic restriction on account of their former use. What Yaakov did was to enable these chattels that had once served idols to qualify for sacred use on the altar. In order to achieve such status they first had to be interred. Only after these preparations had been made, could he and his family proceed to Beyt El.

ויטמון אותם יעקב, “Yaakov buried them, etc.” The Biblical requirement of disposing of idolatrous objects prescribes not burial but scattering to the winds or throwing such items into the sea. Moses did so when he scattered the dust of the golden calf as we know from Exodus 32,20 “he ground it until it was quite fine particles (of dust) and then he sprinkled it on the face of the water.” The fact that Yaakov contented himself with a lesser degree of destruction of these one time idols proves that actually they were no longer forbidden from a Biblical point of view.
Another way of explaining this episode is that even assuming that these artifacts had still retained their status as idolatrous and therefore forbidden objects, the fact that he could not destroy them by throwing them into the Dead Sea, made Yaakov do the next best thing, i.e. to bury them. He was also unable to burn these artifacts so that he would not be unduly delayed giving the people around Shechem a chance to organize themselves against him. Under the circumstances, he did the best he could in order to dispose of them and buried them.

A kind of non-fruit bearing tree. I.e., it does not produce fruits. סרק means רֵק (empty) of fruit. Yaakov did not want the delay of bringing the idols to the Dead Sea, [the normal way to dispose of such objects,] because he was hurrying to fulfill his vow. So he innovated [a quicker method] and buried them in the ground. And he buried them under a non-fruit bearing tree, [where people do not go,] so no one will notice later that the ground had been dug up. (Nachalas Yaakov)

In welchem Zusammenhange die Ringe mit der Abgötterei standen, ist dunkel. Dass auch das goldene Kalb, sowie der von Gideon gebildete Ephod aus solchen Ringen gemacht worden, hellt diese Beziehung nur wenig auf. Es können vielleicht zufällig auch die in Schechem erbeuteten Ringe götzentümliche Embleme gehabt haben. Bemerkenswert ist das chald. קדשיא für das hebr. נזמים.

ויטמון אותם יעקב תחת האלה אשר עם שכם, “Yaakov hid them (the alien deities and jewelry) beneath the oak tree near Sh’chem.” According to B’reshit Rabbah 81,3, the deities were images or three-dimensional replicas of pigeons which were found later on Mount Gerizim where people worshipped them. [Seeing that that mountain is near Sh’chem, it sounds very plausible. Ed.]

אשר באזניהם, “which were in the ears of those idols.”

עם שכם means by Shechem.

אשר עם שכם, near Shechem; we have a similar construction involving the preposition עם in 25,11 וישב יצחק עם באר לחי רואי, “Yitzchok settled near the place named Beer Lachay Ro-i.

חתת means terror.

They began their journey. As long as they were behind the walls of Shechem they were safe, but now they were in need of the “terror of Elokim”.

ויסעו, ויהי חתת אלוקים על הערים, They departed; the fear of the Lord was on the cities in their region. Perhaps the Torah informs us here of the surprising fact that although the departure of Jacob's family from Shechem must have been perceived by the local inhabitants as a flight, they were so overcome with the fear of the Lord that they did not pursue them. Alternatively: although by the time the local inhabitants became aware of it, Jacob's family had long gone and thereby escaped their determination to attack them, they were so afraid of the Lord that they decided not to give chase.

לוזה אשר בארץ כנען, this teaches that there was a second place or town called “Luz.”

הוא וכל העם אשר עמו, “he and all the people who were with him.” It is recorded in a Midrash called מלחמות השם, (and quoted by Nachmanides) that the neighbouring towns of Shechem did indeed gather together and fought three battles against he sons of Yaakov. Had it not been for their father Yaakov who personally girded himself with his sword and other weapons, they would indeed all have been in mortal danger. Our sages refer to this when they interpret the words of Yaakov on his deathbed when he described himself as personally having taken the town of Shechem from the Emorite with his sword and bow (Genesis 48,22). It is the custom of the Bible to furnish us with only the barest details of such encounters, seeing that the kind of miracle which G’d employed was a “hidden miracle,” i.e. not a miracle in which known laws of nature have been visibly changed. Another example of the Bible being sparse with information about such encounters is what happened to Avraham in Ur Casdim i.e. when Nimrod threw him into a furnace and he escaped unharmed. The wars fought by the sons of Esau against the people of Chorite (36,21) are similarly not mentioned here. The Torah contents itself by referring to the “hidden” miracle by simply writing that Yaakov and all those with him arrived at their next destination, i.e. that not a single casualty was sustained by Yaakov’s entourage during the attacks upon them by the Emorites.

לוזה אשר בארץ כנען, “towards Luz which is in the land of Canaan.” There was another town called Luz, elsewhere.

הוא וכל העם, the Torah wants to inform us that Yaakov had not suffered a single casualty among his servants, even, as a negative fallout of the killing of all the males in Shechem, not even on the way. This was all due to the intense fear of retribution by the G’d of Yaakov which had gripped the Canaanites of the region. They did not even dare pursue the family, [which might have been perceived as retreating, seeing that they had not made an attempt to take over the city, Ed.]

אל בית אל EL-BETH-EL — the Holy One, blessed be He, is in Beth-El; i.e. His Divine Presence has revealed itself in Bethel. Sometimes the prefix ב “in” is omitted from a word: e.g., (2 Samuel 9:4) “Behold, he is (בית) in the house of Muchir, the son of Ammiel”, which is the same as בבית in the house of Machir; (24:13) בית אביך is the same as בבית אביך ,‘in the house of thy father”.

ויקרא למקום, which was outside Luz, where he had erected a monument 34 years earlier when he was on his way from his home El Bet El.

ויקרא למקום, to this inn for wayfarers where he had spent the night on his way from home some 34 years ago when the Torah had referred to it as ויפגע במקום (28,11)

ויקראו למקום א־ל בית אל, He named the place El Bet El. Although Jacob had already named this place Bet El when he fled from Esau, he repeated naming the place El Bet El; he meant that G'd specifically associated His name with that site. The reason he thought so was that G'd had revealed Himself to him there. The reason he returned to this place was that G'd had meanwhile fulfilled the promise He made to Jacob at the time of his flight from Esau. The site had therefore assumed an even higher degree of sanctity in Jacob's eyes.

ויבן שם מזבח, this means that he built the altar in the house he had built there at the site of the original monument of which he had said in 28,22 “this will become a house of G’d.” We explained this on that verse. It does not matter that the house itself was not mentioned here separately.

ויקרא למקום אל בית אל, “he called the name of that place ‘El Bet- El.’” According to the plain meaning of the text, the line means: “after G’d had appeared to him, he named the site: ‘the house of G’d.” I have already explained a kabbalistic approach to this verse when I discussed the meaning of Genesis 31,13.

God is in Beis Eil... [Rashi knows] that אל [means “God,”, and] is not a preposition [meaning “to”], because its vowel is a צירה. Also, its tropp is a טפחא, indicates that it is disconnected [from the following word].

Er hatte früher die Stätte Bethel genannt, weil ihm dort die Wahrheit offenbart worden, dass Gott von dem Menschen auf Erden ein Haus gebaut haben wolle, in welchem Er segnend und leitend seine Stätte finde. Jetzt, da er mit einem solchen "Hause" an die Stätte zurückkehrt, vereinigt er damit den Gedanken, wie in der Gewährung der geistigen und materiellen Kraft zur Erbauung eines solchen "Gotteshauses" selbst sich die allmächtig waltende Gottheit offenbart, wie darum die reinste und höchste Menschentat im tiefsten Grunde zur Gottestat wird, ein jedes wahrhafte "Gotteshaus" nicht nur seiner Bestimmung, sondern auch seiner Entstehung nach ein Haus Gottes ist, und nannte die Stätte daher: "Gott des Gotteshauses" wie ja einst David denselben Gedanken aussprach: ממך הכל ומידך נתנו לך Chron. 1. 29, 14.

האלו־הים, the angels (according to Ibn Ezra) scriptural proof: Genesis 32,2: ויפגעו בו מלאכי אלוהים, “angels of G-d met him there.” Also: Genesis 28,12: והנה מלאכי אלו הים, “and lo here there were angels of G-d.” (in his dream)

נגלו אליו האלהים GOD WAS REVEALED UNTO Him — In many passages terms denoting Divine Power and Lordship are used in the plural e. g., (39:20) “Joseph’s master (אֲדֹנֵי)” (construct plural), and (Exodus 22:14) “If its owner (בעליו) be with it”, where it does not say בַּעֲלוֹ (the singular form). Similarly, forms of אלהים denoting Judge or Authority are expressed in the plural, but you will find none other of the Divine Names in the plural.

Originally, he had called the town known as Luz merely Bet El. Now he named the site where he had had the dream with the ladder El Bet El. This site was outside the town previously known as Luz. He added the word El, seeing that during all the intervening years G’d had stood by him.

א-ל בית א-ל, “the sanctuary of Bet El.”

ויקרא למקום א-ל בית א-ל. He had already called it Bet El on a previous occasion, Now he only expanded the name. Compare our commentary on 33,20.

כי שם נגלו וגו׳ denn dort war ihm einst, als flüchtigem, völlig mittellosem Wanderer der Gottesbeistand für eine solche Zukunft zugesagt worden, und diese Verheißung hatte sich nun so voll und mächtig erfüllt. Der Plural in Attributen und Prädikaten zu אלקים ist keineswegs ein sehr gewöhnlicher. Vergleichen wir die Stellen: אשר לו קרובים אליו (B. M. 4, 7 .5) ואם רע בעיניכם לעבוד את ד׳ וגו׳ וגו׳ לא תוכלו לעבוד את ד׳ כי א׳ קדושים הוא (Josua 24, 15f. 19) ומי כעמך כישראל וגו׳ אשר הלכו א׳ לפדות לו וגו׳ selbst das ,(Sam. 11. 7, 23) א׳ חיים Sam. I. 17, 26 und 36; Jirmija 10. 11; 23, 35: so scheint in allen diesen Stellen der Plural aus der Pluralität des Gottheitbegriffes der nichtjüdischen Welt entstanden zu sein, auf welche alle diese Stellen hinblicken, und, im Gegensatz zu diesem, die Nähe, Heiligkeit, Wundermacht, lebendige Daseinswirklichkeit des einen einzigen Gottes Israels hervorheben zu sollen, der in seiner Alleinheit das wirklich ist, was die polytheistische Welt von ihren vielen vermeintlich träumt. So dürfte vielleicht auch hier der Plural aus dem Gegensatz zu dem אלהי נכר erwachsen, deren Embleme er soeben aus dem Kreise der Seinen und derer, die sich ihnen angeschlossen, — waren doch Frauen und Kinder von Schechem, wie es (oben Raw Hirsch on Genesis 35: 29) scheint, bei ihnen — fortgeschafft hatte. Ihnen machte er es an dieser Stätte klar, wie das, was die übrige Welt in ihren Göttern als "betrogene Betrüger" vergebens sucht, er in Wahrheit in dem אל בית אל gefunden, der ihm eben hier offenbar geworden.

כי שם נגלו אליו האלוקים, a reference to the angels ascending and descending the ladder whom he had seen in his dream. Alternatively, the meaning of the word ה-אלוקים is a reference to G’d, Himself, not an intermediary. The reason why he used the plural mode נגלו instead of נגלה when the subject is only G’d Himself, is that this is a form of great respect and honour for the subject [known as pluralis majestatis when a king refers to himself in the plural. Ed.] compare Psalms 149,2 ישמח ישראל בעושיו, “Let Israel rejoice in its Maker.” A similar construction is found in Job 35,10 איה אלו-ה עושי?, “Where is the Lord, My Maker?” There are more such examples in Scripture.

ותמת דבורה AND DEBORAH DIED — How came Deborah to be in Jacob’s house? But the explanation is: because Rebékah had promised Jacob (Gen. 27:45) “then I will send and fetch thee from thence”, she sent Deborah to him to Padan-aram to tell him to leave that place, and she died on the return journey I learnt this from a comment of R. Moses Ha-darshan.

AND DEBORAH REBEKAH’s NURSE DIED. I do not know why this verse has been placed between the verse, And he called the place El-beth-el¹⁸³Verse 7 here. and the following verse, And G-d appeared to Jacob again.¹⁸⁴Verse 9 here. Scripture thus interrupts one subject which occurred at one time and in one place for when Jacob came to Luz, that is Beth-el,¹⁸⁵Verse 6 here. he built an altar there and he called the place El-beth-el,¹⁸³Verse 7 here. and G-d appeared to him there and He blessed him.¹⁸⁴Verse 9 here. Why then was this verse concerning Deborah’s death placed in the midst of one subject?
A feasible answer is that which our Rabbis have said,¹⁸⁶Bereshith Rabbah 81:8. namely that the verse alludes to the death of Rebekah, and therefore Jacob called the name of that place, Alon-bachut (the oak of weeping), for the weeping and anguish could not have been such for the passing of the old nurse that the place would have been named on account of it. Instead, Jacob wept and mourned for his righteous mother who had loved him and sent him to Paddan-aram and who was not privileged to see him when he returned. Therefore G-d appeared to him and blessed him, in order to comfort him, just as He had done to his father Isaac following the death of Abraham.¹⁸⁷Above, 25:11. With reference to both of them the Sages have said¹⁸⁸Sotah 14 a; Bereshith Rabbah 82:4. that He gave them the blessing of consolation addressed to mourners. Proof for this is that which is said below, And Jacob came unto Isaac his father to Mamre,¹⁸⁹Verse 27 here. for had Rebekah been there, Scripture would have mentioned “unto his father and unto his mother” for it was she who sent him. to Paddan-aram and caused him all the good, for Isaac commanded him to go there at her advice.
Now Rashi commented: “Because the time of her death was kept secret in order that people might not curse her — the mother who gave birth to Esau — Scripture also does not make mention of her death.” This is a Midrash of the Sages.¹⁹⁰Tanchuma Ki Theitzei 4. But neither does Scripture mention the death of Leah! Instead, we must say that the intent of the Sages was to explain why Scripture mentions Rebekah’s death by allusion, connecting the matter with her nurse. Since Scripture did refer to it, they wondered why the matter was hidden and not revealed. And the justification for the curse stated by Rashi is not clear since Scripture mentioned Esau at the death of Isaac, And Esau and Jacob his sons buried him.¹⁹¹Verse 29 here.
It is, however, possible to say that Rebekah’s death lacked honor, for Jacob was not there, and Esau hated her and would not attend; Isaac’s eyes were too dim to see,¹⁹²Above, 27:1. and he did not leave his house. Therefore, Scripture did not want to mention that she was buried by the Hittites.
I found a similar explanation in Eileh Hadvarim Rabbah,¹⁹³I found this not in Midrash Rabbah but in Tanchuma Ki Theitzei, 4. in the section of Ki Theitzei Lamilchamah,¹⁹⁴Deuteronomy 21:10. where the Sages say: “You find that when Rebekah died, people said, ‘Who shall go before her? Abraham is dead. Isaac is confined to the house and his eyes are dim. Jacob is gone to Paddan-aram. If wicked Esau shall go before her, people will say, “Cursed be the breast that gave suck to this one.’” What did they do? They took out her bier at night. Rabbi Yosei bar Chaninah said, ‘Due to the fact that they took out her bier at night the Scriptures mentioned her death only indirectly. It is this which Scripture says, And he called its name Alon-bachut, two weepings, [one for Deborah and one for Rebekah]. Thus Scripture says, And G-d appeared unto Jacob… and blessed him.¹⁸⁴Verse 9 here. What blessing did He give him? He gave him the blessing of consolation addressed to mourners.’” Thus far the Midrash. Now because Esau was the only one present at her burial, they feared the curse, and they did not view the burial as an honor to her, this being the significance of the Scriptural hint.
Deborah was in Jacob’s company because after accompanying Rebekah to the land of Canaan, she had returned to her country, and now she was coming with Jacob in order to see her mistress. It may be that she was engaged in raising Jacob’s children out of respect for Rebekah and due to her love for her, and thus she resided with him. Now it is possible that she is not “the nurse” of whom it is said, And they sent away Rebekah their sister, and her nurse,¹⁹⁵Above 24: 59. but that she was another nurse who remained in the house of Laban and Bethuel, and now Jacob brought her with him to support her in her old age out of respect to his mother, for it was the custom among the notables to have many nurses. It is improbable that the old woman would be the messenger whom his mother had dispatched to Jacob [to have him return to the Land of Israel], as Rabbi Moshe Hadarshan would have it.¹⁹⁶Mentioned by Rashi in this verse. A preacher in the city of Narbonne, Provence, France, who lived in the second half of the eleventh century, Rabbi Moshe Hadarshan, compiled a collection of Agadic material on the book of Genesis. The book itself, which had a great influence upon Rashi and other writers, has been lost except for the quotations made by other scholars.

אלון בכות, this is mentioned only because all the locations at which Yaakov stopped on his return from Lavan and which were mentioned in the Torah were mentioned because of something that happened there. They were: Pnuel, Sukkot, El Elo-hey Yisrael, Shalem, the city of Shechem. Luz(ah), El Bet El, Alon Bachut, the second Bet El, Bet Lechem (Efrat), Migdal Eder.

אלון בכות. Mourning results in the withdrawal of the Divine Presence as we know from Shabbat 30. Until Yaakov had passed this tree after mourning Deborah the Divine Presence did not return and accompany him. [He was deprived of such a Presence during all the 22 years that he was mourning for his son Joseph, thinking him dead. Ed.].

ותמת דבורה, according to Rashi, Rivkah had sent word to Yaakov by means of Devorah in accordance with her promise at the time that as soon as Esau’s anger would subside she would recall him from his exile. (27,45) When Devorah delivered the message at Bet El she died forthwith.

ותמת דבורה, “Deborah died, etc.” Nachmanides writes that he does not know why this piece of information was included by the Torah at this point between Yaakov naming the site of the altar Beyt El, and the blessing G’d gave Yaakov when he added the name Yisrael to his previous name. Possibly, the reason was, as our sages suggest, that the news of Deborah’s death was meant to tell Yaakov that his mother Rivkah had died, and that this explains why Yaakov called the site of Deborah’s interment אלון בכות,”the oak of mourning.” Yaakov wept tears for his mother’s death when burying Deborah. He was especially saddened by the fact that he had not been granted a reunion with her after all these years. As soon as he had stopped mourning for his mother, G’d appeared to him and complimented him. (verse 9) Rashi claims that the reason why the precise date of Rivkah’s death has not been revealed was to prevent people to use that date to curse the womb that had produced a person as depraved as Esau, although the date when Leah died has also not been revealed by the Torah. The reason why the sages did not attribute any special reason to the omission by the Torah of the date on which Leah died, was that only the fact that the Torah made a point of mentioning when a servant of Rivkah died, without also at least telling us when her mistress died, calls for further investigation. Nonetheless this is not a good enough reason. The Torah did not omit reporting the death of Yitzchok who had sired Esau, but even reports that Esau partook in his father’s funeral. (Genesis 35,29) It is possible that the Torah omitted a direct report of Rivkah’s death and burial as it was not surrounded by honour, seeing that her son Yaakov did not attend the funeral and her son Esau hated her, and her husband Yitzchok who was practically blind, could not perform the rites, probably was even unable to leave his house. The Torah did not want to report that the Hittite neighbours of Rivkah had to bury her. This would have drawn attention to the lack of honour bestowed on her during her funeral.

The plain of Beis Eil was called Allon. Rashi is saying that Allon does not mean “plain.” Rather, Allon is the name of the plain, as Rashi explains in Parshas Lech Lecha, on איל פארן (14:6). See there.

Wieso diese, jedenfalls hochbetagte Frau, sich in Jakobs Begleitung befunden, ist nicht angegeben. Ob sie, wie einige vermuten, von Rebekka mit einer Botschaft an Jakob gesandt, oder ihm aus Labans Hause gefolgt war, um das einstige Kind ihrer Pflege noch einmal wieder zu schauen, wie רמב"ן vermutet, lässt sich eben nur vermuten. Der Name des ihr Grab überschattenden Baumes zeigt jedenfalls die Pietät Jakobs für seine Mutter, die er selbst in ihrer betagten Amme also geehrt, dass er deren Verlust schmerzlich beweinte.

ותמת דבורה, Deborah, Rivkah’s nursemaid died (near there) the reason why we are told about this at this point may be on account of the prophetess Deborah sitting and holding court near this tree, by the grave of Deborah (Judges, 4.5.)

ותמת דבורה, “Deborah died;” Rashi explains why the Torah suddenly inserts this statement and how it is relevant. We never knew that she was part of Yaakov’s entourage. After all, Yaakov himself had said that when he crossed the river Jordan the first time he had been accompanied only by his walking stick (Compare Genesis 32,11) Rivkah had told Yaakov (Genesis 27,4445) that she would let him know when it was safe to return, when Esau’s wrath had cooled off. She had dispatched Deborah to Padan Arom to inform Yaakov of this. Yaakov had not been willing to return already. Deborah remained with him in the house of Lavan and passed away on the journey on the way back to the land of Canaan. When she had been mentioned the first time (Genesis 24,59) she had only been described as Rivkah’s nursemaid; now the Torah supplied her name.

מתחת לבית אל BELOW BETHEL — The city was situated on a mountain and she was buried at the foot of the mountain.

תחת האלון, beneath the oak. This category of tree also appears in Hoseah 4,13 and in Ezekiel 27,6. According to Onkelos the word is the same as אלוני ממרא with the vowel tzeyreh, i.e. it describes a certain valley or a grove of trees. In Bereshit Rabbah 81,5 Rabbi Shemuel bar Nachman understands the meaning of the word alon as derived from the Greek, where it means “double, additional,” The Torah hints that before the mourning for Deborah was over, news reached Yaakov that his mother Rivkah had died.

He was told that his mother had died. [Rashi knows this] because she did not die earlier, for she sent Devorah to Yaakov, indicating that she had not yet died. However, when Yaakov comes to his father’s house it is written only (v. 27), “Yaakov came to Yitzchok his father,” omitting, “To Rivkah his mother.” Yet, Yaakov came because Rivkah had sent Devorah to him! This implies that Rivkah had [just] died. And since Yaakov now received tidings of a second mourning, as it is written אלון בכות, which means “another mourning,” perforce he was informed of his mother’s death.

תחת האלון UNDER THE OAK — The Targum renders it by “on the lower part of the plain” because there was some level ground above on the slope of the hill and her grave was beneath this. The plain of Bethel bore the name of Allon (cf. Rashi on Genesis 14:6). An Agada (Genesis Rabbah 81:5) states that he there received news of another mourning for he was informed that his mother had died. — In Greek allon means “another”. — Because the time of her death was kept secret in order that people might not curse the mother who gave birth to Esau, Scripture also does not make open mention of her death (Midrash Tanchuma, Ki Teitzei 4).

It is for the following reason that the date of her death was kept secret so that... I.e., Yitzchak was confined to his home due to blindness. And Yaakov was in [transit from] Padan Aram. The only one still with Rivkah was Eisov. Thus the day of her death was kept secret, so that Eisov should not be involved with her burial, for this would cause people to curse the womb from which he came. Some ask: Why would people curse her after her death more than during her life? The answer is: Before her death, people did not see Eisov since he was with his father-in-law in Seir, for that is where Yaakov sent his gift to Eisov. But now, if he would be the only one to come and bury her, people would curse her. Maharshal answers: Her death was kept secret so people would think she was still alive, and they would not be permitted to curse her due to, “You shall not curse a deaf person” (Vayikra 19:14). But this applies only to a live person, [and to the non-deaf as well. See Rashi there].

עוד AGAIN — the second time at this spot: once when he set out on his journey, once when he returned.

וירא אלוקים אל יעקב עוד, after he had moved on from Luz, called now Bet El, he named a second place Bet El, as will be explained forthwith.

וירא אלוקים, after the mourning had concluded.

וירא אלוקים, G’d appeared to Yaakov again; after the mourning. אל יעקב עוד, the reason why the Torah writes עוד, again, is so that we know that this was not an angel, but G’d Himself, Who had already previously appeared to Yaakov as such in 28,13. Just as He had appeared to him on his way to Padan Aram, He now appeared to him when Yaakov was returning from Padan Aram. [I wonder if the fact that on the two occasions when our author emphasises the appearance of G’d without intermediary, were chosen because both took place on the holy soil of the land of Israel, whereas in the Diaspora G’d at best reveals Himself through an intermediary. Ed.]

ויברך אתו AND HE BLESSED HIM. — He gave him the blessing of consolation addressed to mourners (Genesis Rabbah 81:5; cp. Rashi on Genesis 25:11).

The Torah, in retrospect, by using this formulation, tells us that the dream Yaakov had had when in flight, on the way to Charan, had in fact not been merely a dream but a vision.

וברך אותו, the blessing consisted of the verses 10-13. ויאמר...כי אם ישראל, the new name is to be used additionally, as we explained already.

בבאו מפדן ארם. G’d only appeared to him after leaving Lavan. While he was in Lavan’s city he did not rate such visions. The fact that G’d had spoken to him by means of an intermediary, an angel even while still in Padan Aram, is not to be confused with the level of a vision described as “G’d appeared to him.”

לא יקרא שמך עוד יעקב THY NAME SHALL NOT BE CALLED ANY MORE JACOB— which means a man who comes as a lurker and trickster, but it shall be Israel (ישראל), which signifies Prince and Chief.

THY NAME IS JACOB. G-d is saying, “Now you are still called Jacob even though the lord of Esau has changed your name¹⁹⁷Above, 32:29. See Rashi, ibid., Verse 24, that it was “the lord of Esau” who strove with Jacob and then finally blessed him. because he was not sent to you to change your name. However, from now on, thy name shall not be called any more Jacob, but Israel shall be thy name,” this being the meaning of the end of the verse, and He called his name Israel. It may be that it alludes to the fact that He called his name Israel in addition to the name Jacob, but not that it be forbidden for him to be called Jacob.

שמך יעקב, at this time I make your name Yaakov an eternal name, i.e. after all the other nations will have perished you alone will remain. This will give a positive meaning to the word עקב, “heel,” meaning something that will survive all that precedes it. Compare Jeremiah 46,28 כי אעשה כלה בכל הגוים ואותך לא אעשה כלה, “when I shall put an end to all the nations, I will not put an end to you.

לא יקרא שמך יעקב כי אם ישראל, "You will not be called Jacob but Israel, etc." We need to understand the difference between when G'd renamed Abram and when he renamed Jacob. Berachot 13 states that anyone who calls Abraham Abram nowadays violates a positive commandment, whereas it is permissible to refer to Jacob as either Jacob or Israel. Although our rabbis in the Talmud there point out that the Torah itself refers to Israel as Jacob after G'd renamed him, in view of the fact that we ignore the words לא יקרא when it comes to Jacob, why should the same rule not apply to Abraham and we should have the choice of calling him by either name?

שמך יעקב, “your name is Yaakov.” Your name is still Yaakov even though the celestial representative of Esau had changed it to “Yisrael,” it had not been that angel’s mission to change your name. However, from now on your name will be Yisrael. The meaning of the apparent repetition ויקרא שמו ישראל, “He called his name “Yisrael,” is hat this was an additional name and it was not forbidden to call him Yaakov.

A term denoting a person who comes in ambush and deceit... מארב means as in וארב וקם עליו, “And will ambush him, arising against him” (Devarim 19:11).

לא יקרא עוד שמך יעקב כי אם ישראל יהיה שמך. This means that G’d gave him an additional name to his existing one. The word עוד means the same as בלבד, exclusively. G’d informed Yaakov that henceforth he would have two names, used alternatively. We find something similar in Jeremiah 3,16 לא יאמרו עוד ארון ברית ה', where it also means that henceforth the Holy Ark would not only be referred to as ארון ברית ה'. What was meant was that henceforth the site of the Holy Ark would not be the exclusive site for the Presence of the Shechinah, but that the entire city of Jerusalem would have a similarly holy status. This is the meaning of: בעת היא יראו לירשלים כסא ה' “at such a time they will refer to the city of Jerusalem as G’d’s throne” (verse 17 in the above mentioned chapter in Jeremiah). This then is the meaning of כי אם ישראל יהיה שמך,i. Sometimes the name Yaakov would be used, other times the name Yisrael. Proof that this is correct is found in Isaiah 48,12 where the prophet uses both names simultaneously, שמע אלי יעקב וישראל מקוראי, as well as in Jeremiah 46,28 אל תירא עבדי יעקב ואל תחת ישראל, “do not fear My servant Yaakov, nor be afraid Yisrael.” (quoted by Rabbeinu Bachya)

,לא יקרא שמך עוד יעקב'שמך יעקב, “your name has been Yaakov; it will no longer be Yaakov;” The Torah means that henceforth his name would no longer only be “Yaakov,” but the name “Yisrael” would be added to it. If the name “Yaakov” were to be eliminated completely, this would be interpreted as having been a name describing a person with negative character traits up to now. (Compare Esau’s comment in Genesis 27,36) Henceforth the Torah will refer to YaakovYisrael sometimes by his original name and sometimes only by his additional name. When G-d changed Avram’s name to Avraham, He had never said that שמך אבדם, “your name is or was Avram.” This is why the sages have said that anyone referring to Avraham as Avram, is equivalent to violating a positive commandment of the Torah. (Talmud B’rachot 13).

לא יקרא עוד שמך יעקב, when the time will come when Yaakov will be the only surviving nation on earth as Bileam said in Numbers 25,9 הן עם לבדד ישכון, “this is a nation which will dwell in solitary splendour,” there will no longer be any significance to the name Yaakov. [as there are no others to relate its meaning to. Ed.]

Perhaps the very fact that G'd limited the good news when He renamed Jacob by saying: "your name is Jacob," made this change of name qualitatively different from that of Abraham at the time. There had been no need for G'd to repeat "your name is Jacob." Who did not know this? Surely what G'd meant by this was that Jacob's permanent name would remain Jacob, but that on some occasions he would be referred to by an additional name, i.e. Israel. Why would it bother G'd that we should not refer to Abraham's original name? I believe there is a very good reason. We have to remember that names describe the nature of its bearers' souls, their essence. The Talmud Berachot 7 illustrates this point. Jacob's essence then is described by the name Jacob. Whenever he enjoyed a large measure of Holy Spirit he was referred to as "Israel." There is certainly no reason why Jacob should be deprived of his original name on account of an occasional infusion of רוח הקודש. It was quite different in the case of Abraham who retained all the letters of his original name in his expanded name also. This is why G'd commanded to call him only by his new and expanded name Abraham. By doing so one did not deny his original name at all. Perhaps Chronicles I,1 26 refers to this when it states: "Abram is Abraham." When the Torah said: "your name shall not be called, etc," the meaning is that it should not be called exclusively Jacob but also Israel. This is exactly parallel to Genesis 17,5 where Abraham's name was changed.

כי אם ישראל יהיה שמך, “but your name shall be Yisrael.” The name implies that the one possessing it wields authority, as the angel had said to Yaakov: ”you have contended with Divinity and you have prevailed.” (32,29) The name is very appropriate for you as you will be the founding father of kings. Rashi here claims that the reference in this verse is to King Shaul and his son Ish Boshet. Should you ask that we have been taught (in Sanhedrin 20) that Avner was punished for having delayed David’s occupying the throne of the Kingdom for two and a half years, i.e. the years during which Ish Boshet ruled after he appointed him as Shaul’s successor; why would he be punished for this, seeing it has been decreed already in the Torah that he would rule (according to Rashi)? We would have to answer that he was not punished for having crowned Ish Boshet, but because he had crowned Ish Boshet not because he considered him as fit to rule, but that he was motivated exclusively by trying to thwart David from ascending the throne.

כי אם ישראל יהיה שמך, seeing that you will rule, תשתרר over the remnants of all the nations that have ceased to exist as such. This also corresponds to the previous prophecy of Bileam in Numbers 24,17 וקרקר כל בני שת, “he (Yaakov) will smash all the foundation of the sons of Seth (mankind.)

ויקרא את שמו ישראל, He blessed him in that the predictions which were meant for the end of time, were beginning to be implemented already from that time on, and not only while Yaakov was on holy soil in the land of Canaan, but even when he would be outside (as in Egypt). From this time on no one who would attack Yaakov and his family would meet with success. This was the meaning of what our sages said in Sanhedrin 76 that ”wherever Yaakov and his family walked on they became princes over their masters,” and this is what the prophet Jeremiah bewailed in Lamentations 1,1 as what the Jewish people lost as a result of the destruction of the Temple.

אני אל שדי I AM GOD, ALMIGHTY, for I have the power to bless because the blessings are Mine.

אני א-ל שדי, I swear by My own name when I swear an oath. One such example is found in Deut. 32,40 ואמרתי חי אנכי לעולם, “as I have said, I, the One Who lives forever.” G’d’s oaths to Yaakov were always by the attribute Shadday.

ויאמר...אני א-ל שדי; strong and self-sufficient, able to guide all of history, in charge of all developments. We explained this on 17,1. The three matriarchs had all been genetically barren, and G’d overcame their genetic handicaps so that each bore children. This was a display of the attribute א-ל שדי at work.

I have the power to bless because the blessings are Mine. Rashi is answering the questions: Why does it say אני? And why does it say שדי, rather than another Name?

גוי וקהל גוים, das Volk, das von ihm stammen wird, soll nach außen eine Einheit und nach innen eine einheitlich gesammelte Vielheit werden. Jeder Stamm soll eine gesonderte Volksindividualität repräsentieren. Das Jakobsvolk, das als "Jisrael" die alles irdisch Menschliche siegreich durchdringende und gestaltende Gotteskraft den Völkern offenbaren soll, soll darum nicht eine einseitige Erscheinung bieten, sondern als Mustervolk in nuce die verschiedensten Völkererscheinungen darstellen. Es soll in seinen Stämmen das Kriegervolk wie das Handelsvolk, das Volk des Ackerbaus, wie das der Wissenschaften usw. zur Darstellung bringen, auf dass die Wahrheit durch die Welt hin leuchte, dass die Hingebung und Heiligung des Menschenlebens im Gottesbunde seines Gesetzes durch keine besondere Berufsstellung und Völkereigentümlichkeit bedingt, sondern die ganze Menschheit in aller ihrer Mannigfaltigkeit berufen sei, den von Israel gelehrten einen einheitlichen Gottesgeist in sich aufzunehmen und die ganze Mannigfaltigkeit der Menschen- und Völkerindividualitäten zu einem einheitlichen Gottesreiche zu gestalten. Da dürfte denn auch das ולזרעך אחריך אתן את הארץ mit dem Siporno heißen: und deinem dir nachfolgenden Samen werde ich einst die Erde geben — wie וצדיקים יירשו ארץ — es wird ihnen und dem von ihnen in treuer Nachfolge bewahrten geistigen und sittlichen Vermächtnis dereinst die ganze Erde zufallen. (Jes. 2, 3.)

פרה ורבה BE FRUITFUL AND MULTIPLY — God said this in allusion to the fact that Benjamin was not yet born although she (Rachel) was soon to give birth to him (Genesis Rabbah 82:4).

Be fruitful and increase. Do not be afraid that your offspring will be destroyed, even if they are imperfect, because the name “Almighty Shakkai” indicates that I keep My word even to the unworthy.

פרה ורבה, (a promise) you will be fruitful and you will multiply. We explained this in connection with Genesis 1,22. G’d gave a similar promise to Avraham in 17,7 where the promise applied to Avraham’s offspring. Seeing that Yaakov did not have another child after this blessing was pronounced, it is clear that in his case just as in Avraham’s case the promise applied to the next generation, i.e. all of Yaakov’s children were included in this blessing.

Menasheh and Ephraim... Re’m writes that the Rashi text should read: “וקהל גוים. This refers to Menasheh and Ephraim.” [I.e., adding וקהל]. For Rashi interprets גוי as one son, and וקהל גוים as another son. Otherwise, the question arises: Why does Rashi say on 48:4, “Hashem informed me that there would yet emanate from me קהל ועמים,” [referring to Menasheh and Ephraim]? Alternatively, Rashi’s text on 48:4 should read קהל עמים, deleting the ו. And here, the text reads גוים [without וקהל. And the word גוים, which is plural, implies two sons] Menashe and Ephraim. But see the Gur Aryeh on 48:4, who [writes that the Re’m unnecessarily] alters the Rashi text.

גוי A NATION — referring to Benjamin. (Genesis Rabbah 82:4)

ומלכים מחלציך יצאו. This blessing means that the Jewish people would always possess persons who are fit to occupy the throne, as opposed to the Edomites who, as we know from 36,36-37, had to rely repeatedly on outsiders to become their kings.

גוי וקהל גוים, they will all belong to one distinctive nation. This is stated in Chronicles I 17,21 ומי כעמך ישראל גוי אחד בארץ, “and who is like Your people Israel, a unique nation on earth?” This nation will develop into a community of nations i.e. 12 tribes including the son that is about to be born to you now. ומלכים, as per its plain meaning, i.e. “kings.” Basically G’d blessed Yaakov with the same blessing as the one He had bestowed on Avraham, seeing Yaakov was Avraham’s special seed. [of Avraham’s 8 sons, only Yaakov carried on the tradition. Ed.] In Bereshit Rabbah 82,4 our verse is understood as referring specifically to Rachel’s sons. The word גוי is understood as referring to Binyamin, whereas the words קהל גוים are understood as referring to Menashe and Ephrayin, whereas the word מלכים is understood as referring to the two kings from the tribe of Binyamin, Sha-ul and Ish Boshet. Is it possible that Avner who was a righteous man should have rejected the Kingdom of David and appointed Ish Boshet instead? We must answer that he found this Midrash and based himself on that, appointing a king who was a descendant of Binyaim. [and who would be putty in his hands. Ed.]

Shaul and Ish Boshes who were from the tribe of Binyamin... Rashi is saying, that which is written “Kings will come out of your loins,” implies that they were still in his loins—and this could only refer to the tribe of Binyamin, who had not yet been born.

גוים NATIONS — referring to Manasseh and Ephraim who would come from Joseph — and these actually were counted as tribes.

ומלכים AND KINGS — referring to Saul and Ishbosheth who were of the tribe of Benjamin and these were not yet born. This verse Abner explained in this sense when he made Ishbosheth king, and the tribes of Israel also explained it thus and therefore became friendly again with the tribe of Benjamin. For so it is written (Judges 21:1) “They said there shall not any of us give his daughter unto Benjamin to wife”. Afterwards they retracted this, saying, “If, indeed, he was not to be counted among the tribes), the Holy One, blessed be He would not have said to Jacob in reference to Benjamin and kings shall come out of thy loins” (and since there have not yet been kings of the tribe of Benjamin that tribe must not be exterminated). Genesis Rabbah 82:4

גוי וקהל גוים “A NATION AND AN ASSEMBLAGE OF NATIONS” — this means that his sons are destined to become nations the same in number as the nations (of the ancient world) which was seventy. So, too, the whole Sanhedrin consisted of seventy. Another explanation is that it signifies that his children will sacrifice on high places at a time when this practice is forbidden, as other nations always did — this refers to the days of Elijah (Genesis Rabbah 82:5). From “This verse” is found in an old text of Rashi.)

AND THE LAND WHICH I GAVE UNTO ABRAHAM AND ISAAC, TO THEE I WILL GIVE IT. “As I have given it to them so will I give it to you.” This alludes to an oath, for the land was given to them with an oath so that sin should not cause annulment of the gift, but to Jacob it was originally given without an oath. It is this which Scripture refers to when it says in all places, the land of which I swore unto Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob.¹⁹⁸Exodus 33:1. and elsewhere. But nowhere do we find that G-d swore to Jacob, except as implied in this verse. It may that the repetition of the prophecy, [mentioned above, 28:13, and repeated here], constitutes an oath, as I have already explained.¹⁹⁹Above, 26:3.

ולזרעך אחריך אתן את הארץ, in due course, at the end of time, I will give your descendants the entire globe, not only the land of Israel. This was the real meaning of 28,14 “you will spread out to the west to the east and to the north and to the south.” This is also what Bileam prophesied when he said in Numbers 24,17 that Yaakov would uproot all the descendants of Seth, i.e. all of mankind.

לאברהם וליצחק, to Abraham and Isaac. Check on what we have written on Genesis 26,3 that the promise G'd made to Isaac concerning inheriting the land of Israel contained an additional dimension to the promise made to Abraham. G'd promised this additional dimension also to Jacob.

ואת...לך אתננה, as of now.

ואת הארץ אשר נתתי לאברהם וליצחק לך אתננה, “and the land which I have given to Avraham and Yitzchok I will give it to you.” Although the land had already been given to him, it had not been given to him in the form of an oath, i. e. as an irrevocable gift.

אתן את הארץ, “I will give the land.” The promise is repeated twice in the same verse. The Torah does not indulge in such repetitions unless there is a compelling reason. If we adopt a kabbalistic approach the word הארץ at the beginning of the verse is a reference to an attribute of G’d, i.e. the attribute with which all three patriarchs were blessed when the Torah categorised these blessings with the words בכל, מכל, כל, respectively. The meaning then would be “that which I have already granted to Avraham and Yitzchak I will grant to you also, i.e. I will give this land to you (in your own right). It would be similar to Kings I 5,26 “and G’d had granted wisdom to Solomon.” [Seeing that verse commences with an unaccounted for letter ו, our author understands the whole word as a reference to the gift of authority, מלכות (in this instance control of the land of Israel) which G’d had bestowed on David’s son Solomon.] The meaning of the repetition of the word ארץ is that Yaakov’s descendants too would receive the gift of that land in their own right at the appropriate time. We also find a repetition in verse 13 where the Torah writes ויעל מעליו אלוקים במקום אשר דבר אתו, “G’d ascended from upon him in the place where He had spoken with him.” This “place” had already been mentioned earlier (verse 9). It is therefore likely that the word refers to an attribute of G’d such as we find in ברוך ה’ ממקומו, (Ezekiel 3,12) or ברוך המקום (Haggadah shel Pessach). Seeing that our sages have said that the patriarchs are the true carriers of the Shechinah, the Torah has to repeat itself on occasion in order for us to know when it refers to them in such a capacity and when not.

ולזרעך אחריך אתן את הארץ, for they will inherit it and settle it.

אתן את הארץ. "I shall give the land." Why did the Torah have to mention the word "the land" once more instead of simply saying "it," as the Torah did at the beginning of this verse? Perhaps the Torah wanted to tell us that G'd would give this land to Jacob in order that he personally should possess it, not merely his descendants. Had the Torah merely written לך אתננה ולזרעך, we would have understood that Jacob could only make the claim to the land over to his children as an inheritance. This is why the Torah speaks of two separate gifts here, one to him and one to his descendants. This had not been the case when G'd promised the land to either Abraham or Isaac.

במקום אשר דבר אתו AT THE PLACE WHERE HE SPAKE WITH HIM — I do not know what this is intended to tell us.

AND G-D WENT UP FROM HIM. I.e., just as it said with respect to Abraham, And G-d went up from Abraham.²⁰⁰17:22. In both cases, it serves to inform us that this was no mere vision or prophetic dream alone, or something like, And it brought me in the visions of G-d to Jerusalem,²⁰¹Ezekiel 8:3. but that the Divine Presence rested upon him in the place where he stood. And by way of the Truth, [that is, the mystic lore of the Cabala], “G-d went up from him,” from the place where He spoke with him, this being similar in purport to that which is said, Blessed be the glory of the Eternal from His place.²⁰²Ibid., 3:12. Scripture is thus stating that which the Sages have mentioned:²⁰³See Ramban above, 17:22. “It is the patriarchs that constitute the Divine Chariot.”

במקום אשר אתו, when he was on his way to Charan (34 years earlier) at that same inn. There G’d appeared to him (verse 9) and there G’d’s Presence departed from him. This is why he erected a monument at that very site.

ויעל מעליו, just as we have been told in 17,22 when G’d departed from Avraham. The manifestation of His Presence revealed to the patriarchs in a vision came to an end. Yaakov had a visual impression of G’d as He was withdrawing His presence from him. In Bereshit Rabbah 82,6 Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish points out the appropriate nature of this expression for G’d “rising, as it confirms that the patriarchs were the “carriers” of G’d’s Presence on earth (merkavah).

ויעל מעליו האלוקים, “G’d rose from above him.” This verse teaches that this encounter with G’d did not take place at night, in a dream, but that the Divine Presence had manifested itself to Yisrael in a location where he was standing on his feet.

I do not know what this teaches us. [Note: Rashi’s comment relates to v. 13.] Bereishis Rabboh derives from this verse that the Patriarchs are the מרכבה (seat and vehicle of Hashem’s Presence). And Rashi holds of this exposition, as he cited it on 17:22. Nevertheless, Rashi still holds that “At the place where He had spoken to him” is superfluous. For regarding Avraham it is written (17:22), “Elohim ascended from Avraham.” [And it teaches that the Patriarchs are the מרכבה,] even though it does not conclude, “At the place where He had spoken to him.”

במקום אשר דבר אתו. Dem ganzen Zusammenhange nach war die Stelle, an welcher sich hier Gott Jakob offenbarte, nicht dieselbe, die er bereits früher Bethel genannt hatte. Wenn gleichwohl wir Raw Hirsch on Genesis 35: 15 hören, dass Jakob auch diese Bethel nannte, so dürfte diesem die bedeutsame Absicht zu Grunde liegen, die Gegenwart Gottes nicht an eine besondere Stelle zu knüpfen. Überall, wo ein der Offenbarungsnähe Gottes würdiger Mensch weilt, da wird die Stelle zu einer Offenbarungsstätte Gottes geweiht, da entsteht ein "Bethel". Und dies dürfte vielleicht auch in dem Beisatz במקום אשר דבר אתו noch besonders hervorgehoben sein. "Gott enthob sich von ihm an der Stätte, wo Er mit ihm gesprochen hatte". Er, und nicht der Ort, war Basis und Bedingung der dort sichtbar gewordenen besonderen Gottesgegenwart. האבות הן הן מרכבה, wie das erläuternde Wort der Weisen zur Stelle lautet.

במקום אשר דבר אתו, to inform us that the site in question was especially suitable for receiving prophetic insights. G’d spoke to Yaakov at this site already for a second time, as pointed out to him by the angel. He would speak to prophets at that location also in the future as we know from Hoseah 12,5. The site under discussion here is the one where Yaakov at the time when he had the dream with the ladder had anointed the stone which had served as his pillow. The words ויעל מעליו, are a hint that the day would come-after the sin of the golden calf- when the Presence of G’d will withdraw from the Jewish people.

AND JACOB SET UP A PILLAR. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra explained it as meaning: “And Jacob had previously²⁰⁴See above, 28:18; also Ramban, ibid., Verse 17. set up a pillar, and now he poured out a drink-offering thereon, and poured oil thereon.” This is correct.

ויסך עליו נסך, he poured a libation of wine on it. Thereby he completed paying his vow in which he had vowed to make out of the stone which had served as his pillow a monument, meaning “a house of G’d.” (28,22). By anointing this monument he had, so to speak, laid the foundation of the house of G’d to be built there in the future. What he did here was similar to what David did in his time when he prepared the foundation for the Temple his son Solomon was to build after his death in accordance with what the angel had told him at the threshing ground of Arona the Jebusite.

ויצב, the reason why the Torah repeats once more “in the place where He had spoken to him,” is to tell us that Yaakov had come to realise that that place was singularly suitable for deserving people to receive prophetic insights. Even though Yaakov had already said on the original occasion that this place must be designated as a house of G’d, now that G’d’s promises to him had materialised, seeing that G’d had spoken to him in that very place this was even plainer.

ויצב יעקב מצבה, “Yaakov erected a monument.” According to the plain meaning, Yaakov did this now, after the latest manifestation of G’d to him. Ibn Ezra explains that Yaakov had already erected this monument previously, after he had dreamt the dream of the ladder. At that time he did not have oil and wine with him to anoint it as a sacred altar, something that he made up for now. It is not clear whether the word ויסך refers to a libation of wine or of water. He poured the libation over the altar in order to physically cleanse it, followed by anointing it with oil to sanctify it.

ויצב יעקב מצבה במקום אשר דבר אתו אלוקים, "Yaakov erected a monument in the place where G’d had spoken with him." The Torah repeats the words “where G’d had spoken with him,” with which the last verse had ended. The meaning is that G’d had spoken to Yaakov at that place already on a previous occasion at Bet El. At that time Yaakov had erected a monument. When the Torah makes reference to Yaakov erecting a monument at this point, it meant to tell us that this monument had already been erected by Yaakov many years ago; he did not now erect a second monument (compare Genesis 28,18).
The difference between the meaning of the terms מזבח and מצבה respectively, is that the word מצבה refers to an altar consisting of a single stone, whereas מזבח is an altar consisting of a number of stones. Both structures serve the purpose of offering sacrifices. The מצבה serves the purpose of offering drink-offerings and the anointing with oil, whereas the מזבח is suitable for any kind of offering acceptable to G‘d. Seeing that G’d had just told Yaakov that he would no longer be called Yaakov but Israel, it is surprising that the Torah describes the person erecting the monument as Yaakov instead of as Israel. The fact that the Torah here refers to Yaakov by his original name is further proof that the name Israel was an additional name and not a substitute for the name Yaakov. We will find from now on that the Torah uses both these names on different occasions.

נסך bestand entweder aus Wein, zum Ausdruck, dass man seine höchste Freude Gott verdanke, oder aus Wasser, zum Ausdruck, dass auch jeder gewöhnliche Moment mit allen seinen Lebensbedingungen unmittelbar Gottes ist. — יצק שמן על dürfte die bleibende Weihe des Steines für die Zukunft bedeuten, wie oben Kap.28, 18. Vergl. ויצק השמן על ראשו Sam. I. 9, 6.

מצבת אבן, a different stone, not the one he had anointed at the time, 34 years ago. He added one more stone to the monument he had erected then.

ויסך עליה נסך, a libation consisting of wine.

ויצוק עליה שמן, also intended as a gift offering.

AND JACOB CALLED THE NAME OF THE PLACE…BETH-EL (HOUSE OF G-D). He called it so time after time [since he had previously²⁰⁵Above, 28:19. called it by that name]. This is to inform us that it is truthfully and properly a House of G-d, and there the Divine Presence will ever be. The same was true with the name of Beer-sheba, [which was so called by both Abraham and Isaac.²⁰⁶Ibid., 21:31; 26:33. Here too it could not refer to naming the city but rather to calling it by its name.]

ויקרא יעקב….בית אל. Jacob called… it Bet El. This is difficult. We had been told this previously; even the additional word "El" had already been mentioned in verse 4. Perhaps the Torah means that at this time Jacob enlarged the area which he had previously named Bet El. Perhaps this is alluded to in the otherwise superfluous words "the name of the place that G'd spoke to him." He clearly referred to the difference between having experienced a dream with a divine message many years ago, and the present revelation where G'd appears to have addressed Jacob when he was awake.

ויקרא יעקב, this has now been mentioned already a third time, all in order to make sure that we understand that the site at which Yaakov had built the house of G’d, the monument, and the altar he called Bet El, in addition to the fact that originally the name of the whole city had been Bet El. Now the name of the town reflected what had occurred nearby repeatedly.

המקום אשר דבר אתו. This precise expression has been repeated several times in our paragraph, seeing that in each instance the place where G’d spoke to Yaakov was in the middle of the path, not while he was in a town.

ויקרא יעקב את שם המקום....בית א-ל, “Yaakov named the site where G’d had spoken to him Beyt El.” Although he had called this place Beyt E-l already 20 years ago when he had had the first revelation, he repeated the naming of it as up until now he had not been certain that what he had dreamt at that time had indeed been a vision and not a dream representing wishful thinking on his part.

כברת הארץ A KIBRATH OF LAND — Menachem ben Seruk explains the word כברת to have the meaning of כביר “much” and that the phrase means a great distance. A Midrashic explanation is: at the time when the ground was full of holes and was riddled like a sieve (כברה) (cf. Rashi on Genesis 48:7) — when there was plenty of ploughed ground; the winter was passed, but the dry season had not yet come. This, however, cannot be the literal sense of the verse, for in the case of Naaman we find (2 Kings 5:19) “So he departed from him כברת ארץ” (which cannot possibly have this meaning). I think that it is a name for a measure of land, the distance of a Parsa or more, just as you say (Isaiah 5:10) “acres (צמדי) of vineyard” and (33:19) “the parcel (חלקת) of field”: In the same way in reference to a man’s journey Scripture mentions the name of a measure — viz., a כברת ארץ, a כברה of land.

A ‘KIVRATH’ OF LAND. Menachem ben Saruk²⁰⁷See Note 347, Seder Noach. explained the word as having the meaning of kabir (much), i.e., great distance. A Midrashic explanation is: “At the time when the ground is full of holes like a sieve, when there was plenty of ploughed ground. The winter was past, but the dry season had not yet come.” This, however, cannot be the literal sense of the verse, for in the case of Naaman we find, And he departed from him a ‘kivrath’ of land,²⁰⁸II Kings 5:19. [which cannot possibly have this meaning since the sense there is that he had walked away but a small distance from Naaman when Gehazi immediately ran after him] . I think that it is a name for a measure of land. This is Rashi’s language.
The correct interpretation is that which Rabbi David Kimchi²⁰⁹An elder contemporary of Ramban, Rabbi David Kimchi, wrote extensive commentaries upon most of the books of the Bible which are deemed classical to this day. He also wrote a Hebrew grammar and lexicography. Ramban was influenced by his works. has advanced, i.e., that the letter kaph in the word kivrath is the kaph of comparison and is not a root letter of the word, the basic word being as in the verses: They were their ‘levaruth’ (food);²¹⁰Lamentations 4:10. ‘Vethavreini’ (and give me to eat) bread,²¹¹II Samuel 13:5. meaning a small amount of food in the morning.²¹²R’dak’s commentary on this verse is found in his Book of Roots under the root barah, and here in his commentary. And here the meaning of kivrath is the distance a pedestrian covers from morning to the time of eating, for all travellers measure distances in this manner.
This I originally wrote when still in Spain, but now that I was worthy and came to Jerusalem²¹³Ramban arrived in Jerusalem on the ninth day of Ellul in the year five thousand twenty-seven (1267). See my biography of Ramban (Hebrew, pp. 194-5; English p. 14 and 117). See also Note 361, Seder Noach and Note 25 in Seder Lech Lecha. — praise to G-d Who is kind and deals kindly! — I saw with my eyes that there is not even a mile between Rachel’s grave and Bethlehem. This explanation of Rabbi David Kimchi has thus been refuted, as have the words of Menachem [ben Saruk, who said that there was a great distance between the grave and Bethlehem]. Rather kivrath is a name for a measure of land, as Rashi has said, and there is no adjectival part in the word but only a substantive as in most nouns, with the kaph serving a formative purpose to indicate that it was not an exact measure. And if the word be adjectival, modifying eretz, it is possible that brath is like bath, as in the expression, What ‘brie’ (my son)? and what “bar” (O son) of my womb?²¹⁴Proverbs 31:2. The word bath is thus the name for a small measure of land by which travellers measure the way, similar to the present day mile. It is called “bath of the land” for this small measure is as “a daughter” to the Persian mile or some other measure known in those days.
And I have also seen that Rachel’s grave is not in Ramah nor near it, [as the plain meaning of the verse in Jeremiah, 31:15, would seem to indicate: A voice is heard in Ramah… Rachel weeping for her children]. Instead, Ramah which is in Benjamin is about four Persian miles distant from it, and Ramah of the hill-country of Ephraim²¹⁵I Samuel 1:1. is more than two days’ travel from it. Therefore, I say that the verse stating, A voice is heard in Ramah,²¹⁶Jeremiah 31:15. is a metaphor, in the manner of rhetorical expression, meaning to say that Rachel wept so loudly and bitterly that her voice was heard from afar in Ramah, which was on top of the mountain of [the territory of] her son Benjamin. [She cried for her children who went into exile] because they were not²¹⁶Jeremiah 31:15. there, and she was desolate of them. Thus Scripture does not say, “In Ramah, Rachel weeps for her children.” but it says that the voice was heard there.
It appears to me that Jacob buried Rachel on the road and did not bring her into Bethlehem in Judah, which was near there, because he saw by the prophetic spirit that Bethlehem Ephrathah will belong to Judah,²¹⁷Micah 5:1. and he wished to bury her only within the border of her son Benjamin, and the road on which the monument over Rachel’s grave stands is near to Beth-el in the border of Benjamin. And so the Rabbis have said in the Sifre:²¹⁸Sifre, Deuteronomy 33:12. “Rachel died in the portion of Benjamin,” as it is found in the Parshath V’zoth Habrachah.²¹⁸Sifre, Deuteronomy 33:12. Now I have seen in the Targum of Yonathan ben Uziel²¹⁹The standard Targum on the books of the Prophets. See Tractate Megillah 3a. See also Note 128, Seder Vayeitzei, on the three Targumim of the Pentateuch. that he discerned this, and he translated: “A voice is heard high in the world.” [He thus interpreted Ramah, not as the name of a place, since Rachel was not buried in Ramah, as explained above, but rather on the basis of its root ram (high)], and he thus translated the whole verse²¹⁶Jeremiah 31:15. as applying to the congregation of Israel rather than Rachel.

כברת, a word which is similar to Job 34,24ירוע כבירים, “He breaks the mighty ones.” In our context it means something similar to הרבה, a considerable amount. The reason why Rachel was buried at that spot was because it was still a considerable distance from Efrat, and it would not have been dignified to transport her without a coffin for such a distance.

ויסעו...כברת, the meaning of the word כברת הארץ is equivalent to approximately 1200 meters. I believe that the letter כ here is a preposition, the name of the word describing the distance being ברת. We find a similar construction in Samuel II 12,17 ולא ברה אתם לחם “he did not even eat a little amount with them. [I do not understand the relevance of this verse to the word כברת in our verse. Ed.] The letter כ may be a כף הדמיון a letter introducing an estimate, such as כעשרים איש, about 20 men, or כאלפים אמה, approximately 2000 cubits.

ויסעו מבית אל ויהי עוד כברת דרך לבא אפרתה, “they journeyed from Bet-El, and there still remained a tract of land before their arrival at Efrat, etc.” Efrat is another name for Bethlehem. The Torah spells this out in verse 19 where Rachel’s being buried is being described. Nachmanides explains that he personally had measured that the distance between the tomb of Rachel and Bethlehem is less than a mile. He concludes therefore that the commentators who want to derive the word כברת as stemming from כביר, “something major,” are in error. Yaakov could not have excused his burying Rachel there because the distance to Bethlehem was too great. The word כברת describes a certain land measure just as Rashi has said. The three letters ברת are root letters, the letter כ is not. The measure was one which was well known in those days.

Plowing is prevalent the winter has passed — and the hot weather has not yet arrived... [Rashi is saying that] even though the time was good [for traveling], so Yaakov should not have buried her on the road but rather he should have brought her to Ephros, nonetheless he did not do so. This is as Rashi explains in Parshas Vayechi (48:7). However, Rashi explains there that “it was the dry season,” implying it was the middle of summer. Therefore, perhaps Yaakov did not bring her for burial in [the settled part of] Eretz Yisrael because it was too hot [to travel]? The answer is: When Rashi said there that “it was the dry season when the earth is riddled with holes...” he did not mean that it was in the middle of summer. Rather, he meant the beginning of summer when the earth is riddled with holes from the blade of the plow, because plowing is prevalent.

כברת, das כ scheint Konjunktion zu sein, und ברת, verwandt mit ,פרת פרט ,פרד ,ברד, itrennen, teilen zu bedeuten, wie wir diese Wurzel auch in ברית wieder zu finden glauben. ברת הארץ hieße demnach: ein Stück Land, eine Strecke.

ויהי עוד כברת ארץ לבא אפרתה, “it was still a short distance from Efrat;” the prefix ב is missing here before the word: עוד, the meaning of the phrase is as if it had been present.

ותקש, this means the same as if it had said vatekashe. We have similar constructions such as ותצו as alternative for vatetzaveh, or ותכס, vatechasseh.

ותקש בלדתה, she endured great pain during her birthing. The word ותקש may be an intransitive mode of the verb in spite of the dagesh in the letter ת, or it may be in the transitive mode meaning that the pains caused her body to become rigid, interfering with the birthing process. At any rate, she suffered extreme pain.

However, this is not the plain meaning of the verse, for concerning Na’aman we find... I.e., what would Scripture gain there by teaching that the earth was like a sieve and the winter had passed and the hot weather had not yet arrived? What difference would it make? Perforce, כברת ארץ means it was a short distance, and Geichazi immediately ran after Na’aman [and caught up with him].

כברת ארץ, according to Rash’bam, the word is similar to Job 34,24 הביריה, and means “a considerable amount.” It is also compared to Isaiah 10,13, ואוריד כביר יושבים, “I have deposed those who have ruled for many years.” [The prophet quotes the boast of the King of Ashur. Ed.] In our verse the line means that Yaakov was still a considerable distance from the nearest human settlement where he could bury Rachel. ותלד רחל, She did not have enough time to travel to Efrat because it was a long distance away.

Just as you say צמד of vineyards, חלקה of a field... In other words, when one sells a vineyard to another, he says to him, “I am selling you a צמד of vineyards.” And when he sells him a field he says to him, “[ I am selling you] a חלקה of a field.” I.e., this was the known measurement for them.

כי גם זה FOR THIS ALSO — also means additional to you, over and above Joseph. Our Rabbis explained that with each of Jacob’s sons a twin-sister was born, whilst with Benjamin an additional twin sister was born (Genesis Rabbah 82:8).

אל תראי כי גם זה לך בן, in accordance with Rachel’s prayer at the time Joseph was born (30,24) when she asked G’d to grant her another son. The midwife reassured Rachel that G’d did not mean to kill her but that He had accepted her prayer. She wanted to calm Rachel‘s fear for her life.

אל תראי, do not be afraid that the infant about to be born will be a girl although your pains are so great that there is reason for suspecting this. The Talmud in Niddah 31 claims that the birth pangs associated with the birth of female children are greater than those associated with the birth of male children.

אל תיראי כי גם זה לך בן. "Do not fear, for this one too is a son for you." What exactly was Rachel's fear which the midwife tried to alleviate? Assuming that Rachel was afraid to die, how did the midwife's words relieve Rachel's fears by saying "this one too is a son for you?" We also have to analyse the midwife's use of the word גם, "also."

כי גם זה לך בן, “as you had said when you gave birth to Joseph, when you asked G’d to grant you another son. (30,24.) Now get hold of yourself.”

כי גם זה לך בן, “for this child will also be a son for you;” Rashi writes that the midwife referred by the word גם “also” to Joseph. She meant that Rachel’s prayer at the time when she gave birth to Joseph that she would be granted to give birth to another son had been fulfilled. (Compare 30,24) She encouraged Rachel with her words suggesting that it was not G-d’s intention to let her die at this time.

כי גם זה לך בן, even though you are experiencing all these pains, the child is a male.

In order to understand this we must refer to Bereshit Rabbah 82,8 that whereas a twin sister was born with all the other sons of Jacob, Benjamin's birth was accompanied by the birth of two twin sisters. This is why the midwife told Rachel that she should not be afraid to die but that her special difficulties were due to her giving birth to triplets, something that had not been the case when she gave birth to Joseph. The word גם was a reference to the births which would accompany the birth of Benjamin.

She may also have hinted at the statement we find in Niddah 31 that if a mother experiences difficulties when giving birth to a male child this does not threaten her life, whereas if she experiences similar difficulties when giving birth to a female child this does endanger her life. This is why the midwife reassured Rachel saying that the baby about to be born was definitely a boy.

בן אוני means SON OF MY SORROW (Genesis Rabbah 82:9).

‘BEN ONI’ (THE SON OF MY SORROW). I am of the opinion that he was so called because he alone was born in the land of Canaan which lies to the south (yamin) as one comes from Aram-naharaim, just as it is said: In the south, in the land of Canaan;²²⁰Numbers 33:40. Going on still toward the south.²²¹Above, 12:9. Binyamin thus means a son of the south, just as in the verse: The north ‘v’yamin’ (and the south) Thou hast created them.²²²Psalms 89:13. For this reason the name Binyamin is here written “full” [with a yud after the mem to indicate that the name is derived from the word yamin (south)]. This is Rashi’s language.
But I do not understand this claim that the Land of Israel lies to the south of Aram-naharaim for Aram is eastward of the Land of Israel, as it is written, And he came to the land of the children of the east,²²³Above, 29:1. and it is further written, From Aram Balak bringeth me, the king of Moab from the mountains of the East,²²⁴Numbers 23:7. and Jacob crossed the Jordan which is to the east of the Land of Israel, and he returned by way of Edom which is south of the Land of Israel. Thus you find that Aram is south-east of the Land of Israel, and the Land of Israel is to its north. However, if Benjamin was born within the border of Bethlehem Ephrathah which is in the land of Judah — as it is written, Bethlehem in Judah,²²⁵Judges 19:2. and it is further written, But thou, Bethlehem Ephratha, which art little to be among the thousands of Judah²¹⁷Micah 5:1. — this was in the south of the Land of Israel, and he was thus born between Beth-el and Bethlehem Ephrath. And if the place was in the hill country of Ephraim, then it is in the north of the Land of Israel, as it is written, Judah shall abide in his border on the south, and the house of Joseph shall abide in their border on the north.²²⁶Joshua 18:5. And if it was in the portion of Benjamin, it was also not in the south, for it is written, And their border was on the north side.²²⁷Ibid., Verse 12. Thus in any case there was no reason to call Benjamin “a son of the south.”
The correct interpretation appears to me to be that his mother called him ben oni, and she meant to say, “the son of my mourning, similar in expression to: bread of ‘onim’ (mourners);²²⁸Hosea 9:4. I have not eaten thereof ‘b’oni’ (in my mourning).²²⁹Deuteronomy 26:14. And his father understood the word oni in the sense of “my strength,” similar in expression to: the first-fruits of ‘oni’ (my strength);²³⁰Genesis 49:29. And to those who have no ‘onim’ (power).²³¹Isaiah 40:29. And therefore he called him Binyamin, “the son of power” or “the son of strength,” for in the right hand (yamin) there is strength and success, just as it is written: A wise man’s understanding is at his right hand;²³²Ecclesiastes 10:2. Thy right hand shall overtake all those that hate thee;²³³Psalms 21:9. The right hand of the Eternal is exalted.²³⁴Ibid., 118:16. Jacob wanted to call him by the name his mother had called him, for all his children were called by the names their mothers had called them, and he thus rendered it to good and to strength.
Now I have seen in Bereshith Rabbah:²³⁵82:10. “Ben oni, ‘the son of my sorrow.’ And his father called him Benjamin, i.e., in the Sacred Language.” I do not know what this means for it is all the Sacred Language, and so are the names of all his sons in the Sacred Language. However, the Rabbis have alluded to that which I have said, namely, that Jacob rendered the expression so that it signified good.

ויהי בצאת נפשה, while her soul was about to depart from her body,

ויהי בצאת נפשה כי מתה, ותקרא שמו בן אוני, “it was at the moment when her soul was departing, seeing she was dying, she called him Ben Oni.” Some commentators claim that Ben Oni was named by Rachel after she had “died.” This corresponds to the plain text which first reported Rachel’s death followed by the naming of the baby. It is not unusual for a terminally sick person to pass out and create the impression that she had died, only to briefly regain consciousness before dying completely. This would explain why the Torah seems to speak of two “deaths” which Rachel experienced, i.e. “her soul departed,” and “for she had died.”

און .בן אוני scheint in seiner Grundbedeutung die physische, oder moralische Fähigkeit zum Erwerb und Besitz zu sein, daher auch den Anspruch auf ein Gut zu bedeuten. In diesem Sinne heißt auch און rabbinisch geradezu: Rechtstitel: כותבין ב״ק פ׳ בי) .עליו אונו). Es ist Vorbedingung und Anfang vom הון. Der Missbrauch dieser Erwerbs- und Besitzeskraft heißt: אָוֶן, wie der Missbrauch der Überordnung עול: עָוֶל. -das erste durch einen herben Verlust hervorgerufenen Schmerz און Daher aber auch- gefühl; es ist der sich zum Besitz berechtigt glaubende Anspruch, der im Momente des Verlustes am schärfsten hervortritt, sich gleichsam gegen die Beraubung empört. Daher zunächst das durch die noch daliegende Leiche frisch gehaltene Schmerzgefühl um einen Dahingeschiedenen. ויהי העם כמתאוננים: das Volk war, als ob sie über sich selbst trauerten, sie sahen fich wie bereits Gestorbene an, und hielten gleichsam Trauer über sich. Hier somit בן אוני: Sohn meiner Trauer, d. i. Sohn meines Hinscheidens, das man bald betrauern wird. Der Vater aber nannte ihn: בן ימין, Sohn der Rechte, d.i. Sohn der Kraft, die heitere Bedeutung des און hervorkehrend. Über den Namenwechsel 17ישרא יעקב Raw Hirsch on Genesis 35: 20 u. 21, siehe zu Kap.45, 28.

בן אוני, “son of my sorrow;” she foresaw the tragedy involving the tribe of Benjamin in a civil war described in Judges chapters 19-21.

בצאת נפשה כי מתה, ”when her soul departed as she was dying;” she was both dying and not dying;

בנימין BENJAMIN — I am of opinion that he was so called because he alone was born in the land of Canaan which is in the South (ימין) as one comes from Aram-Naharaim, as it is said (Numbers 33:40) “in the South, in the Land of Canaan”, and (12:9) “going on still towards the South”. בנימין therefore means בן ימין where ימין has the same meaning as in (Psalms 89:13) “The North and the South (ימין) Thou hast created them”. For this reason the word is here written plene (with a י after the מ).

כי מתה, ,for she was dying and there was no hope for her, she called him

בן אוני. “son of my pain.”

בנימין, the name is spelled with two letters י, as if it meant בן ימין, “the son of my right hand.” (Compare KimchiJ) Alternate version: the last letter in the word is the letter ם, i.e. ימים, “days” or “years,” and means that Yaakov considered Benjamin as a son who would assist him in his old age, seeing that he was the youngest. We find support for this interpretation in Isaiah 51,18, אין מחזיק בידה מכל בנים גדלה, “no one takes her by the hand of all the sons she raised.”

Another explanation of בנימין is that it means “son of his old days (ימים)”, only that it is written with ן (instead of ם), like (Daniel 12:13) “at the end of days.

בן אוני, for I gave birth to him in great pain;

בנימין, “son of my right.” Rashi explains the name in terms of Binyamin being the only one of Yaakov’s sons who had been born on the soil of the Holy Land. This land is to the south when one comes from Aram Naharayim, i.e. it is on the right hand side of the traveler. Nachmanides objects by proving that the Land of Israel is not situated to the south of Aram Naharayim. He claims that the reason that Yaakov called this son Binyamin was because his mother had called him Ben Oni, a word having a negative connotation, so that his father gave this word a positive connotation, i.e. he did not change the name but the meaning of the name, giving it the same meaning as in Genesis 49,3 where he described Reuven as כוחי וראשית אוני, “my strength and the first of my vigor.” The word בנימין referring to the strength of one’s right hand, is therefore very appropriate [all Biblical atlases have Aram Naharayim north-east of the land of Israel, so that Rashi appears correct, from the point of view of Geography, though Nachmanides’ approach that Yaakov did not actually change the name Rachel gave is more appealing. Ed.] Basically, all the sons remained known by the names given them by their mothers. Yaakov simply gave the name Ben Oni a positive connotation.

ואביו קרא לו בנימין, meaning “the son of my right hand.” The name suggested that the child is especially beloved seeing that he was born when his father was already advanced in years. We find the word ימין used in the sense of being especially beloved in Psalms 80,18 וכן תהי ידך על איש ימינך, “grant Your help to the man at Your right hand, etc.” The end of the verse על בן אדם אמצת לך, “the one You have adopted as Your own,” spells out this meaning beyond any doubt.

ותמת רחל ותקבר בדרך אפרתה, “Rachel died and was buried on the way to Efrat.” Our sages in Bereshit Rabbah claim that the dignity of women requires that they be buried at the place they die. [not found in my edition of Bereshit Rabbah. Ed.] They use the example of Rachel being buried at the site she died as the precedent for their statement. We also find that Sarah was buried at the site she died as the Torah wrote: “Sarah died at Kiryat Arba which is presently called Hebron,” i.e. she died in Hebron and was buried in Hebron as the Torah reports in Genesis 23,19 “afterwards (after the purchase of the local burial ground) Avraham buried his wife Sarah.” We also find that Miriam was buried where she died (Numbers 20,1)

ותקבר בדרך אפרתה, “she was buried on the way to Efrat.” Rachel had lost so much blood during giving birth that Yaakov was not able to bring her to the cave of Machpelah.

היא מצבת קבורת רחל, the one Samuel referred to after the latter departed from him, having been anointed king over Israel. (Samuel I 10,2)

מצבה על קבורתה, this was for protection against the grave being damaged or exhumed by people doing this for nefarious purposes, as it was located at the crossroads where there is a lot of traffic. [I presume it could not be in a field as Yaakov would not violate private property to bury his dead. Ed.]

למגדל העדר, close to Bethlehem as mentioned in Michah 5,1 as well as in chapter 4,8 there.

ויסע, on his way to his father’s house.

ויט אהלו ההלאה למגדל עדר, “and he pitched his tent to beyond Migdal Eder.” The meaning of the word מהלאה is “close to.” The same word occurs in the same sense in Genesis 19,9 where it means “come closer.” We also find the word having this meaning when Jonathan told his lad in Samuel I 20,22 החצים ממך והלאה, “the arrows are closer to you.” So here too the meaning of the word is that Yaakov pitched his tent opposite the place called Migdal Eder. This was the place where the number of the twelve tribes had become complete with the birth of Binyamin. In commemoration of that event we read in Micah 4,8: “and you O Migdal-Eder, outpost of Fair Zion.”

(21-22) Wir haben bereits wiederholt (Kap.9, 21; 12, 8; 13. 3) die Schreibweise אהלהֹ als Bezeichnung des von Mann und Frau geteilten Zeltes gefunden, in welchem sogar die Frau als die eigentliche Herrin und Walterin des Hauses in den Vordergrund tritt. Möglich wäre es daher, dass auch hier אהלה das Zelt bezeichnet, das Jakob bis dahin mit Rahel geteilt, und dass der Sinn dieser Stelle wäre: er schlug sein Zelt, das er nunmehr nicht mehr mit Rahel teilen konnte, fern von dem Herdenturm auf, um welchen die Familie und somit auch Lea und die anderen Frauen lagerten. So lange Rahel lebte, lebte Jakob auch mit Lea und den anderen Frauen; seit dem Tode Rahels trennte er sich auch von ihnen. Möglich sodann, dass daher Reuben, um Jakob zur Wiederannäherung an seine Mutter Lea zu veranlassen, sein Lager im Zelte der Bilha nahm, damit der Vater erfahre, wie seine Trennung von der Familie den Söhnen auffalle. Er erreichte jedoch nicht seinen Zweck. Jakob blieb getrennt, und eine Folge davon war, dass die Familie mit den bereits vorhandenen Zwölfen abgeschlossen blieb: ויהיו בני ויקב י"ב

למגדל עדר, a tower not far from Efrat. We find a reference to this place in Micah 5,1: ואתה בית לחם אפרתה, and immediately afterwards: ואתה מגדל עדר. An alternate interpretation: the reason why Yaakov did not bury Rachel in that cave was that Esau had still not given up his claim that he would be buried there. After the reconciliation between the brothers, Esau not only renounced this claim but eventually moved out of the land of Canaan altogether, leaving it for the descendants of Yaakov.

בשכן ישראל בארץ ההוא WHEN ISRAEL DWELT IN THAT LAND — before he came to Isaac at Hebron, all these troubles happened to him.

AND ISRAEL HEARD OF IT. Scripture relates Jacob’s humility. He heard that his son had profaned his couch, but yet he did not command them to remove him from his house and from inclusion among his sons so that he should not inherit with them. Instead, he is counted among them, as it is written, And the sons of Jacob, were twelve, and he is counted first. It is for this reason that Scripture has combined the two sections of the Torah²³⁶In the written Torah the upper section concludes with the words, And Israel heard of it. Then a new section begins, And the sons of Jacob were twelve. Ramban explains why the Masorah combines them into one verse. through one verse. For although this is the beginning of a subject wherein Scripture commences to count the tribes now that they were all born, it hints that Reuben was not rejected on account of his deed.
In line with the simple meaning of Scripture it is possible that Reuben disturbed the couch of Bilhah [Rachel’s handmaid] because he feared that she might give birth again from Jacob, for he, being the first-born and thinking of taking two portions of the inheritance, would thus lose more than all the brothers. He had no fear of his mother for she was elderly. Zilpah had perhaps died, or it may be that he had concern for his mother’s honor, and since Zilpah was her handmaid, he did not disturb her. It was for this reason that the right of the first-born was taken away from Reuben, measure for measure. And this is the purport of the verse, And the sons of Jacob were twelve, meaning that he did not beget children after that.

וישמע ישראל, this matter has been reported only so that we can understand why Yaakov passed over his firstborn son Reuven when in his blessings before his death he referred to him as פחז כמים אל תותר כי עלית על משכבי אביך (49,4). “the one who was as unrestrained as water when you mounted the bed of your father, does not deserve the privileges associated with the birthright.” [These privileges were allocated by Yaakov in part to Yehudah, commencing with the reign of David, and in part to Joseph, as the firstborn son of Rachel. The latter was accorded two tribal heads, (Ephrayim and Menashe) among the twelve tribes. Ed.]

And Yisrael heard. Nevertheless, he did not cease to count Reuvein among his sons because he had no doubt that he repented immediately.

ויהי בשכון, Yaakov did not reside anywhere until he came to his father; however, seeing that he had so many animals and possessions that he moved extremely slowly, it appeared as if he was actually settling down.

וישמע ישראל, “Israel heard about this.” According to Nachmanides, the phrasing of Yaakov’s reaction to the manner in which he reacted to his first born son’s defiling his bedroom is an example of Yaakov’s extreme humility. He could easily have banned Reuven from his house for having been guilty of such a misdemeanour, as well as having disinherited him. Instead, the Torah reports that Reuven continued to be a full member of the 12 sons, as we have been told in verse 23. In fact, the Torah goes further by writing immediately that Reuven ranked first among all his sons. (verse 24) The Torah draws our attention to this by making a single paragraph out of what normally should have been two separate paragraphs. Looking at the plain meaning of the text, it is possible that Reuven’s intention in invading his father’s private bedroom which he shared with Bilhah, was to prevent Yaakov siring more children with Bilhah, seeing that as the firstborn, he would receive 2 shares of the eventual inheritance, any additional children Yaakov would sire would result in his share of the inheritance becoming diminished. At the same time, he did not have similar worries about his own mother giving birth to more children, as she was beyond child-bearing age, and Zilpah might have died already. It is also possible that he was simply concerned about the insult endured by his mother who had to now take a back seat not only to her deceased sister Rachel, but even to her maidservant, when he observed that his father made Bilhah’s tent his principal bedroom. It is possible that the verse “Yaakov’s sons were 12,” was meant to alert us to the fact that he sired no more children after this episode. Some commentators interpret the line “Reuven went and slept with Bilhah,” to mean that now that Yaakov had lost both Rachel and Bilhah, there was no cause to worry since the twelve sons who were to make up the Jewish people had been born already. Yet another explanation is that the line “Yaakov’s sons numbered 12, etc.,” means that originally there had been 13, seeing that Reuven being the firstborn had been considered equivalent to two sons. Now, in view of his indiscretion, he had lost his superiority vis-à-vis the other brothers. Rabbi Yehudah the pious, explains the episode as follows: at the time when Yaakov had settled in that region, Reuven left that region and set up house by himself, the reason being that he had been guilty of the above-mentioned indiscretion in Bilhah’s tent, where he had been presumed to have had relations with Yaakov’s concubine. He had done so, in order to forestall his father from doing so, now that Rachel had died. When Yaakov heard about the reason why Reuven had fled the scene, he moved his tent to Leah. As soon as Reuven heard this, he returned to the fold, i.e. “the sons of Yaakov were12.” Some commentators point to the wording of וישכב את בלהה instead of וישכב עם בלהה, as meaning that all Reuven had done was to put his bed next to that of Bilhah. [the expression את always denotes a lesser degree of intimacy than the expression עם. (compare Genesis 30,16,Samuel II 11,4; ) Ed.] Further proof that Reuven did not actually sleep with Bilhah, is provided by Yaakov himself in Genesis 49,4 when he describes Reuven’s indiscretion with the words: כי עלית משכבי אביך, אז חללת יצועי עלה, “for when you entered your father’s bedroom you desecrated him who ascended the bed that had been made for me.” All Reuven had been guilty of was to disarray the bedclothes, not to lie in them. He spoke about the person lying in the bed in the third person, instead of saying: “you lay in my bed.”

Prior to his coming to Chevron to Yitzchok... I.e., all this happened to him because he delayed coming to his father Yitzchok.

וישכב את בלהה פלגש אביו, “he lay with Bilhah, the concubine of his father.” According to some commentators (Talmud tractate Shabbat folio 55,) all he did was that he removed her couch from his father’s tent. This occurred before Yaakov had returned to his father’s house. The Torah treats the deed as if Reuben had committed incest with his aunt. Our author points to Job 31,12, [he could have used the entire sequence from verse 1 to there Ed.] as proof that harbouring incestuous thoughts may be considered as if one had carried out what one had fantasized about. Ed.

וישכב את בלהה, “he slept with Bilhah.” This is not to be understood literally, but he invaded her privacy and messed up the linen on her bedstead, or simply moved her bed from its normal position. This was a protest against her trying to replace Rachel. Reuven, Leah’s oldest son, felt that now that Rachel had died, his mother should outrank any of the other wives of his father. Rashi points out that this is not the only instance when the Torah to make its point exaggerates the indiscretion committed by some people, or when it rounds up numbers. An example of such an exaggeration quoted is the injury that the angel had caused Yaakov in their nocturnal struggle. He had not made Yaakov’s hip joint useless, but had only dislocated it. (32,26) וישמע ישראל, “Israel heard about this;” about Reuven’s indiscretion. ויהיו בני יעקב שנים עשר, “the sons of Yaakov remained 12.” Yaakov had no more sons after this. The reason was that he no longer carried on marital relations with any of his wives. Our sages derive this from the line: אז חללת יצועי עלה, “then you desecrated Him who abode on my bed.” (Genesis 49,4) Yaakov meant that ever since the sanctity which had distinguished his marital bed had ceased to exist and been profaned. (Compare Rash’bam on that verse) The reason why here we have the words: וישמע ישראל, “Israel heard,” (instead of “Yaakov” heard) is so that when you read that verse in chapter 49 you will not ask: ‘how did Yaakov ever find out about Reuven’s indiscretion?’An alternate interpretation: the reason why the line that Yaakov’s sons were and remained 12, is inserted here where reference is made to Reuven’s indiscretion, is in order not to allow anyone to think that possibly some of Yaakov’s sons might not have been his but Reuven’s, but it refers to the most recently born son born for him by Rachel. Yaakov together with all of his twelve sons returned to their father’s home.

וישכב AND HE LAY — Because he had disturbed his couch Scripture accounts it to him as though he had actually sinned in this manner. But why did he disturb his couch? When Rachel died Jacob removed to Bilhah’s tent and Reuben came and protested against the slight thus inflicted on his mother (Leah). He said: “If my mother’s sister was her rival, is that any reason why the handmaid of my mother’s sister should become a rival to her!” On this account he disturbed the couch (Shabbat 55b).

וילך ראובן, he went to Bilhah’s tent and slept with her.

Yaakov took his bed... and placed it in Bilhah’s tent... This was because Bilhah was Rachel’s handmaiden. You might ask: Why did Yaakov do this? Why did he not place it in Leah’s tent? The answer is: Yaakov did not place his bed in Leah’s tent when Rachel was alive, so he reasoned that Leah would not want to accept it now. But Reuven, who regularly spent time with his mother, knew she would accept it. Therefore he went and disturbed the sleeping arrangement. (Maharshal)

ויהיו בני יעקב שנים עשר NOW THE SONS OF JACOB WERE TWELVE — Scripture begins again where it left off the previous narrative (i.e. the birth of Benjamin): when Benjamin was born the destined number of his sons was complete and it was proper that they should then be enumerated; and therefore it enumerates them. Our Rabbis explained that these words are intended to tell us that Jacob’s twelve sons were all equal — they were all equally righteous, for Reuben had committed no actual sin (Shabbat 55b).

פלגש אביו, his father’s concubine. Actually, she was his father’s wife, but in Reuven’s view she was no better than a concubine. Reuven did not consider her as out of bounds to him as she had been a slave woman originally, and his father had subsequently taken her to be his concubine. The Torah clearly states that she had become Yaakov’s proper wife in all matters legal. (30,4) As such Bilhah was totally out of bounds to him. Even before the giving of the Torah, the laws of incest governing all of mankind (Noachide laws) included the prohibition of sleeping with one’s father’s wife. (compare our commentary on 20,24) If such legislation applied to all of mankind, how much more so did it apply to the sons of Yaakov. As a result of this trespass Reuven’s status as Yaakov’s legal firstborn was revoked on Yaakov’s deathbed when he publicly announced his unfitness for the title as we also know from Chronicles I 5,1, and his position was given to Joseph instead.

וישמע ישראל, he stopped living with Bilhah as a result of this. The meaning of the line ויהיו בני יעקב שנים עשר, is that from that time on Yisrael had no further children. He no longer slept with any woman for the remainder of his life. In fact, he basically became a recluse, not attending to mundane activities but concentrating on serving G’d directly. This is what he had meant when he said in his vow, that once he would return safely to his father’s house, והיה ה' לי לאלוקים, “the Lord will be my G’d.” According to the Talmud Shabbat 55 Reuven had not actually slept with Bilhah at all, but had only made her bed look slept in, disturbed, to give the impression that intimacy had taken place there. This was a protest against his father not only having spent most of his married life with Rachel, but even now after her death spending his time with Rachel’s maidservant instead of with his mother, with Leah.

בכור יעקב JACOB’S FIRSTBORN — even when it speaks of his corrupt action Scripture calls him firstborn (Genesis Rabbah 82:11).

בכור יעקב ראובן, as far as Heaven was concerned Reuven did not suffer consequences because he had repented forthwith. He also did not suffer really in this world, i.e. on earth, until on his deathbed Yaakov punished him by depriving him of the material benefits enjoyed by the first born in that he inherits an extra share of his father’s estate. This punishment was withheld in accordance with the principle that anyone guilty of being ostracised by the community is not actually ostracised until the leading sage of the generation declares him to be so. (Moed Katan 16) This is based on Judges 5,23 where Devorah, the ruling judge of Israel, curses the inhabitants of a certain place called מרוז who had failed to answer her call to arms against the army of Siserah, general of Yavin, King of the Canaanites who had been oppressing the Israelites. The מלאך ה' she quotes in that verse is the leader of the generation, herself in this instance.

בני לאה, בכור יעקב ראובן the sons of Leah Jacob's firstborn Reuben. The reason that the Torah had to repeat here that Reuben was Jacob's firstborn was in order that we should not think that Reuben's misconduct with Bilhah had disqualified him from being the firstborn. This also proves that when the Torah described Reuben as having slept with Bilhah this was not meant literally. When the number of Jacob's sons is described as 12, this too is proof that Reuben had not committed an act by which he forfeited being included in that count. Inasmuch as Reuben represented the first drop of semen Jacob ever ejaculated, the idea that he could have been guilty of such a horrendous crime as actually sleeping with one of his father's wives is quite impossible. This is why the Torah emphasises בכור יעקב, he was Jacob's firstborn.

בני לאה, seeing that Binyamin had by now been born, the Torah enumerates all the sons.

ויהיו בני יעקב שנים עשר. Now that Binyamin had been born the total number of Yaakov’s son amounted to 12. This verse has been delayed in order not to break the sequence of the narrative.

בכור יעקב ראובן, “Yaakov’s firstborn was Reuven.” The distinctive title “firstborn” is accorded to Reuven at the very place where his misdemeanour has been recorded. The Torah informs us that although as a result of this misdemeanour Reuven lost the distinction of being looked up to by his brothers as the firstborn, the Torah implies that what Reuven lost to Joseph as a result was only the double share in the father’s inheritance that the firstborn is entitled to and possibly the respect normally accorded to the firstborn by his younger siblings. The status of being a “firstborn” in matters of genealogy, etc. remained unchanged. This is why the Torah underlined: “Reuven was the firstborn of Yaakov.” We find this confirmed in Bereshit Rabbah 82,11. The Midrash uses the words ויהי בשכון ישראל in verse 22 to elaborate on this theme. Rabbi Simon is quoted as saying that it is difficult for G’d to uproot genealogical facts. The Torah proves this when describing Reuven as the firstborn immediately after having recorded his misdemeanour. Rabbi Yudon added that Reuven remained the firstborn in respect to officiating as the family’s priest (as was customary prior to the sin of the golden calf); he remained officially the oldest; and he remained the firstborn in respect of תשובה, (i.e. that his repentance was accepted assuring him his claim to his former title). Rabbi Azariah added that he also remained the firstborn in respect of prophecy as we read in Hoseah 1,2 that G’d communicated first with Hoseah (seeing he enjoyed the privilege of being senior to the other prophets who were his contemporaries).

The firstborn in inheritance; the firstborn in Divine Service. I.e., when the Kohen Gadol performed the Divine Service, he would wear the choshen and ephod. The names of the Tribes were on the choshen and the shoulder straps of the ephod. Reuvein[’s name] appeared first.

בכור יעקב JACOB’S FIRSTBORN — firstborn with regard to heritage, firstborn with regard to Divine Service (for before the Levites were appointed to minister to God the duty devolved upon the oldest son in each family), firstborn in any enumeration of the twelve tribes; for the right of a firstborn son was given to Joseph only in respect of the tribes — in that he founded two tribes (just as a firstborn son received a double portion in his father’s property) (Genesis Rabbah 82:11).

בכור יעקב ראובן, even though he had sinned and Yaakov had deprived him of the birthright on account of his sin, the Torah still refers to him as “the firstborn.” We are told in Bereshit Rabbah 82,11 that Rabbi Shimon said that it is legally difficult for G’d to tamper with the chronological chain of ancestry. How do we know this? Because we find the following verse in Chronicles I 5,1 ובני ראובן בכור ישראל כי הוא הבכור ובחללו יצועי אביו נתנה בכורתו לבני יוסף, “and the sons of Reuven, Yisrael’s firstborn, for he (Reuven) was the firstborn even though because he had mounted the bedstead of his father his birthright had been given to the sons of Joseph.” This appears to mean that Reuven forfeited the material advantages associated with the birthright, i.e. double portion of an inheritance; but he was not deprived of his status as the biological firstborn, in fact he could not be deprived of it. Rabbi Yitzchok, on the same folio of the Midrash, adds that even in his hour of disgrace, the Bible refers to Reuven with the attribute “the firstborn.”

The firstborn in enumeration... When the names of the Tribes are enumerated, Reuvein is counted first.

אשר ילד לו בפדן ארם, the word yulad (instead of yuldu) occurs generally in the singular mode though applying to a number of births. The Torah speaks of all of these children having been born in Padan Aram although we know that Binyamin was born in the land of Israel, quite close to Bethlehem. The reason is that the Torah was concerned with where most of the children had been born.

אשר ילד לו בפדן ארם, “who were born to him at Padan Aram.” What is meant is that the majority were born there, seeing we have read just recently that Binyamin was born on Holy Soil in the Land of Israel

אשר יולד לו בפדן ארם, “that had been born for him in Padan Arom.” This statement begs the question that as we have just heard, Binyamin had not been born in Padan Arom?We have to understand the verse as meaning that Binyamin had been born as a result of Rachel’s having prayed to G-d to give her another son while she had still been in Padan Arom (Compare Genesis 30,23. This is why the Torah here, 7 years later, describes Binyamin’s birth as dating back to that time.) A different exegesis of this puzzling statement: Seeing that almost all of Yaakov’s children had been born while he was in Padan Arom, the Torah applies the Talmudic statement of רובם ככולם, “if the majority had been distinguished by a certain detail we view all of the ones referred to in that context as if they possessed the same distinguishing features.” We find this principle applied by the Torah also in Genesis 46,27, where 70 people are reported to have been brought to Egypt by Yaakov, although only 69 names are listed, three of them being Joseph and his two sons. The Midrash (B‘reshit Rabbah 94,9) claims that seeing that Moses’ mother was born at the border of Egypt, her birth completes the number 70.

ממרא MAMRE — the name of the plain.

Where Avraham and Yitzchok lived. Righteous forebears stand a person in good stead among his neighbors.

ויבא..קרית הארבע, we explained the meaning of this on 23,2. The reason for the definitive article in front of the word ארבע, i.e. הארבע, something strange seeing that it refers to the name of a human being, is justified as the name itself is symbolic, i.e. is in reality an attribute, describing the “foursome,” the father and his three sons, all of whom giants.

The name of the plain. But is it not written in Parshas Lech Lecha (13:18), “And he settled in אלוני ממרא which is in Chevron,” on which Rashi explains that ממרא is the name of a person? The answer is: There it is written באלוני ממרא, and אלון is itself the name of the plain. [Perforce, there it means, “The אלון of the person named ממרא.”] We should not object that perhaps the plain has two names, אלון and ממרא, and there it was called by both its names. Because then it should have said באלוני בממרא, to show that the plain has two names. Since it is not written in this manner, ממרא must be the name of a person. Re’m explains that here, ממרא cannot be the name of a person, because it is written afterwards קרית הארבע, which refers to the place.

קרית הארבע KIRIATH-ARBA— the name of the city.

אשר גר שם אברהם ויצחק, this is mentioned seeing that now Yaakov also sojourned there. It teaches that it is appropriate for a person to be buried in the town where his ancestors had lived as it is a sign of honour for his ancestors who were also buried there. Nechemyah speaks repeatedly of “the city where my fathers have been buried;” he attributed the significance to the fact that several generations of his ancestors had been buried in the same place. (Nechemyah 2,3 and 2,5)

The name of the city. Rashi is saying that the city’s name is Kiryas Arba, and it does not mean, “The kiryah (city) of the person named Arba.” For it is written (23:2) ותמת שרה בקרית ארבע היא חברון, [and not ותמת שרה בחברון קרית ארבע]. This shows that Kiryas Arba is the name of the place. The ה of הארבע in this verse is in place of של (of). Thus it means, “The plain of Kiryas Arba,” as Rashi himself goes on to explain.

ממרא קרית הארבע therefore means “to the plain of Kiriath-arba”. If you say that it should have written ממרא הקרית ארבע (that Kirjath-arba being one name the definite article should be placed in front of it) then I reply that this is the rule in Biblical Hebrew: in every case of a name compounded of two words, such as this, and such as בית לחם and אבי עזר and בית אל, when it is necessary to prefix the definite article (in order to determine the name) it is prefixed to the second element of the name — thus (1 Samuel 16:1)בית הלחמי the Bethlehemite; (Judges 6:24) “in Ophrah (אבי העזרי) of the Abiezrites”; (1 Kings 16:34) “did Hiel the Bethelite (בית האלי) build”.

AND THE DAYS OF ISAAC WERE. There is no strict chronological order in the narrative of the Torah. The sale of Joseph preceded Isaac’s death. This is Rashi’s language. Now I have already written²³⁷Above, 11:32. that such is the customary way of Scripture with respect to all generations: it tells of a person and his children and his death and then begins with the account of the next generation even though the generations overlapped.
Now it would have been proper for Scripture to present Isaac’s death prior to the experiences of Jacob, just as it did in the case of Abraham and all former generations. But by this delay, Scripture intended to state that Isaac died in a good old age, an old man, and full of years²³⁸Ibid., 25:8. — [just as is said of Abraham] — after his blessed son Jacob, the inheritor of his high rank, returned to him, and his sons Esau and Jacob, great men of the world, buried him.²³⁹Verse 29 here. It was not necessary for Scripture to mention that they buried him in the cave of Machpelah since it mentioned that Isaac was in the city of Hebron,²⁴⁰Verse 27 here. and where should they bury him if not near the gravesite of his father?

ויהיו ימי יצחק מאת שנה ושמונים שנה, Isaac lived to be one hundred and eighty years old. The reason that the Torah does not add אשר חי, "which he lived," as it did when reporting Abraham's death or Jacob's death or even Joseph's death, may have been that from the day of his birth until the time he was bound on the altar no wife had been assigned to Isaac; our sages in Kohelet Rabbah section 9 state that anyone who lives without a wife is not really considered as "living." On the other hand, our sages also say that as a result of the עקדה Isaac began to lose his eyesight (Bereshit Rabbah 65,10). A person who is deprived of his eyesight cannot be described as truly "alive."

ויהיו ימי יצחק, וגו', “Yitzchok lived to a total of 180 years.” Rashi reminds us that the Torah is not obligated to narrate in chronological order, seeing that the sale of Joseph had preceded the death of Yitzchok. Nachmanides explains that it was an accepted custom when relating someone’s biography, to complete that person’s biography, and only then to begin to describe details of the next generation and the characters that are important during that generation. Actually, the death of Yitzchok should have been reported still earlier, just as the Torah reported the death of Avraham or other generations before proceeding to inform us about the activities of Yitzchok. The reason why the Torah had delayed reporting Yitzchok’s death until now needs explanation. We have to justify the delay displayed by the Torah in reporting Yitzchok‘s death only now as reflecting the Torah’s intent to show us that he lived to a ripe old age, long enough for his son Esau to return to the parental home and take part in the funeral of his father. There was no need to tell us that Yitzchok was buried in the cave of Machpelah, seeing that he lived in Kiryat Arba, right next door to that cave.

Alternatively: since he did not bring חיים with him on his way to the עקדה, the Torah did not see fit to mention the word חיים in his connection.

ויגוע יצחק AND ISAAC EXPIRED — There is no such thing as “earlier’’ or “later” (chronological order) in the narratives of the Torah (Pesachim 6b), and the sale of Joseph preceded Isaac’s death by twelve years. Thus: at Jacob’s birth Isaac was sixty years old — as it is said (25:26) “And Isaac was sixty years old [when he bore them]” (Esau and Jacob). Isaac died when Jacob was 120, for if you deduct 60 from 180 (Isaac’s age when he died), you have left 120. Joseph was 17 years old when he was sold, and that year was the one hundred and eighth of Jacob’s life. How is this? Jacob was 63 when he received the blessing of his father; 14 years he hid himself in Eber’s School — making 77 — and 14 years “he served for his wives” (Rashi borrows a phrase from Hosea 12:13 “And Israel served for a wife”; but he means for both wives), and at the expiration of these 14 years Joseph was born as it is said (30:25) “and it came to pass when Rachel had born Joseph” (that Jacob wished to return home and he would not have desired to do this if his fourteen years of service were not completed) making 91. Add to this the seventeen years of Joseph’s life before he was sold, and you have 108. This may also be derived more directly from Scripture thus: from the time when Joseph was sold until the time when Jacob came to Egypt was 22 years, for it is said (41:46) “And Joseph was 30 years old [when he stood before Pharaoh]” (and therefore he had been in Egypt 13 years, as he was 17 when he was sold) and the seven years of plenty and two of famine had elapsed before Jacob came to Egypt (cf. 45:6), making 22 years. And as it is written (47:9) that Jacob on his arrival in Egypt said to Pharaoh “The days of the years of my sojournings are a hundred and thirty years”, it follows that at the time when Joseph was sold Jacob was one hundred and eight years old.

עשו ויעקב, they are mentioned in this order, a) because Esau was the firstborn, and, b) Yaakov deferred to him according him this honour. When the Torah described Avraham’s funeral, Yitzchok, the younger, was mentioned first seeing that Yishmael was the son of a slave-woman.

ויגוע...עשו ויעקב, Esau is mentioned first, seeing that he was the firstborn although he had sold his birthright to Yaakov. Moreover, Yaakov had been in the habit of according the honour due to a firstborn to Esau, ever since the two had made peace between themselves. On the other hand, when describing the funreal of Avraham, the Torah names Yitzchok first, seeing that Yitzchok had been the son by the major wife of Avraham, Sarah, whereas Yishmael had only been the son of the servant maid (25,9)

עשו ויעקב בניו. Wenn es oben Kap.25, 9 bei Abrahams Begräbnis heißt: יצחק וישמעאל בניו obgleich ja auch dort Ismael der ältere war, hier aber Esau zuerst genannt wird, so glauben wir auch darin eine Bestätigung der Tatsache zu finden, dass Jakob in äußerer, materieller Beziehung weder von der בכורה noch von der ברכה irgend welchen Vorteil gezogen, vielmehr nach Jizchaks Tode anstandslos Esau den Vorrang als älterem Bruder eingeräumt habe.

ויקברו אותו עשו ויעקב בניו, “and his sons Esau and Yaakov buried him.” Esau is mentioned first seeing that biologically, he remained the firstborn. Yaakov also treated him with the honour due to a firstborn. When the Torah describes the burial of Avraham, in which both his sons also participated, Yitzchok is mentioned first although he was 14 junior to Yishmael, seeing Yishmael was the son of a slavewoman. (Compare Rash’bam).