Komentarz do Rodzaju 46:1

The suffix ה replaces the prefix ל locale (Yevamot 13b).

AND HE OFFERED SACRIFICES UNTO THE G-D OF HIS FATHER ISAAC. The duty of honoring one’s father is more imperative than that of honoring one’s grandfather. Therefore the sacrifices are associated with the name of Isaac, and not with that of Abraham. Thus the language of Rashi. But this is not sufficient, for it would have been proper for Scripture to say, “and he offered sacrifices unto the G-d of his fathers,” without singling out any one person, just as Jacob said, The G-d before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk;⁷⁵Further 48:15. and in his prayer he said, O G-d of my father Abraham, and G-d of my father Isaac.⁷⁶Above, 32:10. Or Scripture should have said, “and he offered sacrifices to the Eternal,” just as it says in the case of Abraham, And he built there an altar unto the Eternal.⁷⁷Ibid., 12:7. And what need was there to explain it further?
However, this verse contains a secret, which the Rabbis revealed to us there in Bereshith Rabbah:⁷⁸94:5. When Jacob was about to go down to Egypt he saw that the exile was beginning for him and his children, and he feared it, and so he offered many sacrifices to the Fear of his father Isaac⁷⁹Above, 31:53. in order that Divine judgment should not be aimed against him. This he did in Beer-sheba which was a place of prayer for his father, and from there he had taken permission when he went to Haran.⁸⁰See Ramban above, 28:17.
Now Scripture uses the word z’vachim, [a term connoting peace-offerings], to inform us that they were not burnt-offerings as were his fathers’, as Abraham offered burnt-offerings. Our Rabbis have said⁸¹Zebachim 116a. that Noachides⁸²See Note 148 in Seder Vayishlach, also Note 222 in Seder Bereshith. did not offer peace-offerings; they offered burnt-offerings. And concerning Noah it is clearly written, And he offered burnt-offerings on the altar.⁸³Above 8:20. But on account of his fear of the Eternal, Jacob offered peace-offerings in order to bring all Divine attributes into accord towards him, even as the Rabbis have expounded:⁸⁴Torath Kohanim Vayikra 16:1. “They are called sh’lamim (peace-offerings) because they bring shalom (peace) into the world.” Now his original intent was directed at the Divine attribute of power, this being nearest to Isaac. This is the explanation of that which the Rabbis mentioned in Bereshith Rabbah,⁷⁸94:5. i.e., that the duty of honoring one’s father is more imperative than that of honoring one’s grandfather. This explanation applies to that which the Rabbis have said there in yet another form: “First you greet the pupil and afterward you greet the Rabbi.”⁸⁵The case refers to a procession of a Rabbi and his pupils on the road. Since the pupils travel in advance of the Rabbi, a person coming from the opposite direction would first meet the pupils and then the Rabbi. Similarly, Isaac is the pupil and Abraham is the Rabbi. Hence Jacob offered sacrifices to the G-d of his father Isaac.
I have seen this text in the Midrash of Rabbi Nechunya ben Hakanah:⁸⁶Sefer Habahir, 135. See Note 42 in Seder Bereshith. “And Jacob swore by the Fear of his father Isaac.⁷⁹Above, 31:53. Is there any one who swears by the belief of the Fear of his father? However, it was because Jacob was not yet given strength, and so he swore by the power given to his father, as it is said, And Jacob swore by the Fear of his father Isaac.⁷⁹Above, 31:53. And what is this? It is this concerning which Scripture writes, Then the fire of the Eternal fell, and consumed the burnt-offering,⁸⁷I Kings 18:38. and it is further written, For the Eternal thy G-d is a devouring fire, etc.”⁸⁸Deuteronomy 4:24. Thus far the Midrash. From the words of the Rabbis of this Midrash, we learn that it was for this reason that it does not say here, “and he offered sacrifices to the Eternal,” [but instead it says, “to the G-d of his father Isaac],” because now in Beer-sheba Jacob had already become privileged to possess his own portion [and needed only to bring all Divine attributes into accord towards him],⁸⁹The words in the brackets are from the Commentary of Lvush to the Rekanati on the Torah, who quotes these words of Ramban. as it is said, Thou wilt give truth to Jacob, mercy to Abraham, as Thou hast sworn unto our fathers from the days of old.⁹⁰Micah 7:20. It was therefore necessary to explain it now. Thus by the merit of the sacrifices, the G-d of his father Isaac appeared to him in the visions of the night⁹¹Verse 2 here. with an ameliorated Divine attribute of justice. It is this which Scripture says concerning them, in the visions of the night, complementing that which He said, I am G-d, the G-d of thy father,⁹²Verse 3 here. for He is the G-d of Beth-el Who said to him in Haran, I am the G-d of Beth-el, where thou didst anoint a pillar;⁹³Above, 31:13. it is He Who is the G-d of thy father. This is the Name and this is the attribute. And He assured him that he should have no fear in Egypt for he will be found righteous in Divine judgment, and he will be redeemed after the affliction. This is the meaning of the Divine promise, And I will also surely bring thee up again.⁹⁴Verse 4 here.
Now the Rabbi [Moshe ben Maimon] has written in the twenty-seventh chapter of the first part of the Moreh Nebuchim (Guide of the Perplexed) concerning Onkelos’ translation of the verse, I will go down with thee into Egypt, and I will also surely bring thee up again,⁹⁴Verse 4 here. [which Onkelos rendered here literally]: “I will go down with thee…and I will bring thee up.” And the Rabbi was amazed at the opinion of Onkelos, [namely, that the literal translation should be used], saying that Onkelos had exerted all his effort to remove any implication of G-d’s corporeality from all narratives in the Torah. Accordingly, in the case of any expression found in the Torah implying any mode of motion that refers to G-d, Onkelos ascribed the action to a certain glory that had been created for the occasion, or a manifestation of Divine Providence. Thus he translated And G-d came down⁹⁵Exodus 19:20. as “and G-d manifested Himself;” I will go down now and see⁹⁶Above, 18:21. as “I will manifest Myself now and see.” And if so, why did Onkelos here translate literally, “I will go down”? And so the Rabbi explained that since Scripture said at the outset of the matter, And G-d spoke unto Israel in the visions of the night,⁹¹Verse 2 here. thus indicating that it is an account of what Jacob was told and not what actually took place, Onkelos therefore did not hesitate to literally translate the words as they were addressed to Jacob in the visions of the night, for the words in question represent an account of what Jacob was told, not what actually took place. There is thus a great difference between a communication transmitted in a dream or a vision of the night, or a communication designated as having been made in a vision or manifestation, and a communication given clearly, [not in a dream, such as communications introduced by phrases like these]: “And the word of the Eternal came unto me, saying,” or “And the Eternal spoke unto me, saying.” These are the words of Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon.
Similarly he said⁹⁷Moreh Nebuchim I, 48. that Onkelos never translated expressions of “hearing” literally [when the Scriptural references were to G-d], but instead explained them as expressing that a certain matter reached the Creator, or that He accepted a prayer. Thus Onkelos translated the Eternal heard⁹⁸Above, 29:33. as “it was heard before the Eternal;” he translated the verse, I will surely hear his crying⁹⁹Exodus 22:22. as “I will surely accept his complaint.”
But if the matter is as the Rabbi [Moshe ben Maimon] said, why does Onkelos shun literal translations of expressions of movement, and also avoid literal expressions of hearing due to his fear that they might indicate corporeality, but he does not in any place shy away from literally expressing “saying,” “speaking” or “calling,” whether the communication was in a dream or manifestation or overt speech, for in every case he translates: “and G-d said,” “G-d spoke,” “and G-d called unto Moses”? These expressions likewise signify corporeality, and Onkelos should have translated, “and it was said from before G-d,” or “and the glory of G-d said,” or “and G-d willed,” as is appropriate in each case, just as the Rabbi has explained¹⁰⁰Moreh Nebuchim I, 65. with reference to the terms “speaking” and “saying” when they refer to G-d. And why did Onkelos avoid literal translation in the case of “hearing” and did not do so with respect to “seeing,” which he translated as: “and the Eternal saw”?¹⁰¹Above, 6:5. And that which the Rabbi has said¹⁰²Moreh Nebuchim I, 48. that “seeing” indicates mental perception as well as the sensation of sight, this applies all the more to “hearing” for it is employed in many places to indicate mental perception and will, such as: And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai;¹⁰³Above 16:2. Hear the voice of my supplications;¹⁰⁴Psalms 28:2. Yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear;¹⁰⁵Isaiah 1:15. And it shall come to pass, if thou shalt hearken diligently unto the voice of the Eternal thy G-d.¹⁰⁶Deuteronomy 28:1. And so also, leiv shomei’ah¹⁰⁷I Kings 3:9. (literally: a hearing heart, an understanding heart), and so also in the case of most of [the verses cited by Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon]. So Onkelos should not have been apprehensive of expressions of “hearing” as they only indicate acceptance of a matter by G-d and His being pleased with it, for he does not avoid literal translations of expressions of sight any place, but translates it literally in all cases even when seeing alone is involved. However, where a matter is not conceived by sight alone, but requires attention and discernment, Onkelos renders it as befits the subject. For example, when Scripture says, Because the Eternal hath looked upon my affliction,¹⁰⁸Above, 29:32. [Onkelos rendered it as, “because my affliction is manifested before the Eternal”]. The verse, I have surely seen the affliction of My people,¹⁰⁹Exodus 3:7. [was rendered by Onkelos as, “the enslavement of my people is manifest before me,” and the verse], And G-d saw the children of Israel,¹¹⁰Ibid., 2:25. [he rendered as, “and the enslavement of the children of Israel was manifest before G-d],” since His seeing them was not just as a matter of perceiving their bodies but of His attention to their situation and His knowledge thereof. This is Onkelos’ method throughout the Torah, and not as the Rabbi’s opinion would have it, as a consquence of which opinion he had to declare [our version of Targum Onkelos] erroneous¹¹¹Ramban refers here to Chapter 48 of the first part of the Moreh Nebuchim mentioned above, in which Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam) sets forth the theory that Onkelos always renders “seeing” literally except where it is connected with wrong, injury or violence, in which cases he expresses it as “It was manifest before the Eternal.” Onkelos is thus consistent with the prophetic phrase, Thou canst not look on iniquity (Habakkuk 1:13). However, Rambam mentions that he found three passages which contradict his theory. One is the verse, And the Eternal saw that the wickedness of man was great upon the earth, (above, 6:5), and the other two are mentioned in the following note. In these three cases which are connected with wrong and violence, Onkelos should have expressed “seeing” in the form of “being manifest before the Eternal,” and yet he translated them literally! Rambam then concludes that our version of Onkelos is inaccurate in those three cases! It is this conclusion of Rambam with which Ramban takes issue in the text before us. in [the following three places: the verse mentioned above, namely, And the Eternal saw],¹⁰¹Above, 6:5. and two other verses,¹¹²And G-d saw the earth, and behold it was corrupt, (above, 6:12). And the Eternal saw that Leah was hated, (above, 29:31). which Onkelos translated as, “and He saw,” since these translations do not fit his theory.
With reference to expressions of “passing” Onkelos paraphrased and thus translated the expression, And the Eternal passed by before him,¹¹³Exodus 34:6. as, “and He caused His Presence to pass before his [Moses’] face.” He did this so that the passing object would be, in accordance with Onkelos’ opinion, something created, as he would not ascribe any expression of motion to the Creator in accordance with what the Rabbi has mentioned.¹¹⁴Moreh Nebuchim I, 21. But if this is so, why did Onkelos literally translate the verse, The Eternal thy G-d, He will go over before thee?¹¹⁵Deuteronomy 31:3. In our version of Onkelos, the text reads, “His word will go over.” Ramban’s objection is thus removed. This is a form of motion occurring in a narrative¹¹⁶As opposed to “the visions of the night.” See the beginning of the section where Ramban explains this distinction which Rambam makes. and yet Onkelos was not apprehensive about it! Similarly, Onkelos translated the verse, And Israel saw the great hand,¹¹⁷Exodus 14:31. as, “and Israel saw the power of the great hand.” He added the term “power” due to the subsequent expression, that the Eternal did,¹¹⁷Exodus 14:31. yet he left intact the expression, “the great hand” and was not apprehensive and fearful of the term “hand” being ascribed to G-d and did not paraphrase it at all! He did the same in literally translating, written with the finger of G-d.¹¹⁸Ibid., 31:18. The Rabbi’s answer¹¹⁹Moreh Nebuchim I, 66. that Onkelos thought that “the finger” was a created instrument which, by the will of the Creator, engraved the writing on the tablets, is not the truth. There is the verse, At His right hand was a fiery law unto them,¹²⁰Deuteronomy 33:2. in translation of which Onkelos wrote, “His right hand,” and he was not apprehensive of “the right hand writing,” that is lest it indicate corporeality, and such is the case also with “the finger” as mentioned above. He furthermore literally translated: Thou stretchest forth Thy right hand¹²¹Exodus 15:12. as, “Thou raisest Thy right hand.” So also the verses: Thy right hand, O Eternal, dasheth in pieces the enemy;¹²²Ibid., Verse 6. Thy strong hand;¹²³Deuteronomy 3:24. By a mighty hand, and by an outstretched arm;¹²⁴Ibid., 4:34. And My hand take hold on judgment;¹²⁵Ibid., 32:41. The eyes of the Eternal thy G-d are always upon it.¹²⁶Ibid., 11:12. [Onkelos literally translated all of these verses without fear that the terms “hand” and “eyes” might indicate corporeality.] Now in the case of Jacob, the Scriptural narrative begins, And he dreamed, and behold a ladder set up on the earth, etc., and yet Onkelos, fearing corporeality, translated [the verse, And, behold, the Eternal stood beside him],¹²⁷Above, 28:12-13. as “and, behold, the Glory of G-d stood beside him,” and he did not translate literally, “and, behold, the Eternal” although it was in a dream.¹²⁸Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon’s thesis is that the reason Onkelos did not paraphrase the verse, I will go down with thee into Egypt, but translated it literally, is that the narrative begins with a statement that it was in a vision of the night. Ramban questions this thesis, for in the story of the ladder, which is also introduced as a dream, Onkelos avoided possible indications of corporeality, and accordingly he paraphrased the verses. He further translated the expression, And, behold, I am with thee,¹²⁹Above, 28:15. as “and, behold, My word will be in thy help,” and did not say literally, “and, behold, I am with thee,” just as he literally translated, “I will go down with thee,” even though the story of the ladder is a statement of what Jacob was told, [not a narrative of what took place], and is completely analogous to the narrative of the dream here. Again, Onkelos literally translated the expression, And I will be with thy mouth,¹³⁰Exodus 4:12. [even though the story there is not introduced as a vision of the night or a dream], and on the other hand he translated the verse, And He said, Certainly I will be with thee, and this shall be the token unto thee,¹³¹Ibid., 3:12. as “behold, My word will be with thee.” Furthermore, Onkelos does not always translate literally in the case of dreams. Thus he rendered the verses, And G-d came to Abimelech in a dream of the night,¹³²Above, 20:3. And G-d came to Laban in a dream,¹³³Ibid., 41:22. as “and the word came from before G-d.” Should you say that Onkelos paraphrased it there because he was concerned lest one think that G-d came to them before the dream, and one might thus think that G-d’s appearance actually took place, [this would still not justify his using the expression, “and the word came,”] for in the case of Solomon it is written, In Gibeon the Eternal appeared to Solomon in a dream,¹³⁴I Kings 3:5. and yet Jonathan ben Uziel¹³⁵See Note 152 in Seder Noach. translated it as, “G-d revealed Himself to Solomon,” even though, according to Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon, a narrative introduced as a dream is rendered by Onkelos and Jonathan as it was actually said. They find no difficulty in translating such a statement literally, even though the expression connotes corporeality, because since it occurs in a dream, they understand that it is inexact. Thus in the case of Solomon, since the Eternal appeared to him in a dream, it was proper for Jonathan to give a literal account of the occurrence, for since Scripture relates that it was in a dream by night,¹³⁴I Kings 3:5. one would himself infer that it was not real but only a dream in which the person dreaming imagined it to be so. [Now since Jonathan did not paraphrase the account of Solomon’s dream, although Onkelos did so in the case of the dreams of Abimelech and Laban, it thus helps to disprove the thesis of Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon that accounts of what occurred in man’s imagination are not paraphrased by the Targum.] Now do not think that Jonathan ben Uziel did this because the term “seeing” in reference to dreams is not found in Aramaic — for the verse, And I saw in my dream,¹³⁶Above, 41:22. is indeed translated [in Targum Onkelos] as “I saw,” and in the case of the dream of Nebuchadnezzar, it likewise says in Aramaic, Thou O King, sawest.¹³⁷Daniel 2:31.
And so did Onkelos translate the verse, Your murmurings are not against us, but against the Eternal,¹³⁸Exodus 16:8. as “but against the word of G-d.” Onkelos thus paraphrased here even though there is no fear or apprehension of corporeality connoted by literal translation. Likewise, he translated And the people spoke against G-d, and against Moses¹³⁹Numbers 21:5. as, “and the people murmured against the word of G-d.” So also the verses, Between Me and you,¹⁴⁰Above, 9:12. and Between G-d and every living creature,¹⁴¹Ibid., Verse 16. were translated by Onkelos as: “between My word and you,” “between the word of G-d and every living creature.” There are many similar examples [of verses which he paraphrased in spite of the fact that there would have been no apprehension of intimating corporeality had he translated literally]. And so also he translated The Eternal watch¹⁴²Ibid., 31:49. as “the word of G-d watch;” G-d is witness¹⁴³Ibid., Verse 50. as “the word of G-d is witness.” Yet there would be no apprehension of corporeality had those expressions been literally translated. Besides, what sense is conveyed here by the expression, “the word of G-d’ watch or witness”? Similarly the verse, Swear unto me here by G-d,¹⁴⁴Ibid., 21:23. is rendered by Onkelos as “swear unto me by the word of G-d,” although people who swear do not mention, “I swear by the word of G-d.” There are many other such cases in Onkelos, and their secret meaning is known to the learned students [of the mystic lore of the Torah].
Likewise, with respect to the term “standing” when applied to G-d, the Rabbi said¹⁴⁵Moreh Nebuchim I, 28. that Jonathan ben Uziel’s intent was to explain it as meaning “to endure permanently,” and therefore he translated the expression, And His feet shall stand,¹⁴⁶Zechariah 14:4. as “and He will appear in His might.” So also all expressions denoting contact and motion were rendered by him as “the might of G-d.” Yet Onkelos had no apprehension of the term “standing.” and he translated it literally: Behold, I will stand before thee there upon the rock.¹⁴⁷Exodus 17:6.
And concerning that which the Rabbi has said¹⁴⁸Moreh Nebuchim I, 27. that all expressions denoting any mode of motion are rendered by Onkelos as the revelation of the Divine Presence, or the manifestation of a certain Glory that had been created for the occasion, now Onkelos avoids even literal translation of verses which mention “seeing” the Glory [of G-d, and would certainly oppose using it to denote expressions of motion]. Thus he translates the verse, And the glory of the Eternal appeared unto all the congregation,¹⁴⁹Numbers 16:19. as “and the glory of G-d was manifested,” just as he said in translation of the verse, And the Eternal came down,¹⁵⁰Exodus 19:20. “and the Eternal manifested Himself,” and did not translate it literally as “and the glory of the Eternal appeared.” He also likewise translates “seeing,” when referring to angels, as “and he manifested himself.”¹⁵¹Onkelos, ibid., 3:2. Now if it is as the Rabbi [Moshe ben Maimon] said¹⁴⁸Moreh Nebuchim I, 27. that in the case of angels, or manifestation of a certain glory that had been created for the occasion, Onkelos does not hesitate to literally translate expressions denoting corporeality, it would have been proper for him not to avoid expressions of literal “seeing” of angels by man, and should there translate it as “and he appeared,” just as he has literally rendered the verse, For I have seen ‘Elokim’ face to face,¹⁵²Above, Verse 32. as “for I have seen an angel of G-d.” Heaven forbid that the Divine Presence or the Glory created for the occasion be anything except the glorious Divine Name, blessed be He, as the Rabbi has expressed himself here¹⁴⁸Moreh Nebuchim I, 27. and in many chapters of his book. Thus Onkelos translated the expression, If Thy face go not,¹⁵³Exodus 33:15. as “if Thy Divine Presence go not among us.” Now, other than the glorious Divine Name, blessed be He, Moses did not want a special Glory created to go with him, since the Holy One, blessed be He, had already told him, Behold Mine angel shall go before thee,¹⁵⁴Ibid., 32:34. and Moses was not pleased with it. He instead wanted that G-d in His own glory should go with him. Also, after G-d heard his plea and told him, I will do this thing also that thou hast spoken,¹⁵⁵Ibid., 33:17. Moses said, Let the Lord, I pray thee, go in the midst of us,¹⁵⁶Ibid., 34:9. and this Onkelos rendered as “let now G-d’s Divine Presence go among us.”¹⁵⁷We thus see that even here, where it is clear from the context that the verse refers to G-d and not an angel, Onkelos does not hesitate to translate “going” literally. He similarly translated the expression, Thou canst not see My face,¹⁵⁸Ibid., 33:20. “thou cannot see the face of My Divine Presence, for man shall not see Me.” [In translating the verse in the book of Ezekiel, Blessed be the glory of the Eternal from His place,]¹⁵⁹Ezekiel 3:12. Jonathan ben Uziel said, “Blessed be the glory of the Eternal from the region of His Divine abode.” Now if by this “Glory,” [which is mentioned in the book of Ezekiel] Scripture refers to the Creator in His true essence, analogous to the verse, Show me, I pray Thee, Thy glory,¹⁶⁰Exodus 33:18. which the Rabbi has indeed so interpreted,¹⁶¹Moreh Nebuchim I, 54 and 64. then how did [Jonathan ben Uziel] in translating the verse mention “the region of His Divine abode” [when the terms “region,” “abode,” etc., indicate corporeality]? And if one would say that the verse in Ezekiel refers to a certain glory that had been created for the occasion, as is the opinion of the Rabbi with respect to the verse, And the glory of the Eternal filled the tabernacle,¹⁶²Exodus 40:35. Moreh Nebuchim I, 64. and other similar verses, then how did the angels direct their words, “Blessed, etc.,” towards it when he who blesses and prays to a glory created for an occasion is as he who worshipped idols? The teachings of our Rabbis also contain many texts which indicate that the name Shechinah (Divine Presence) is identical with G-d, blessed be He. But all these subjects, [some of which are rendered literally and some of which are paraphrased, are not influenced by a fear of using terms denoting corporeality but rather by secrets] of the Cabala¹⁶³See Note 56 in Introduction to Sefer Bereshith. known to Onkelos and Jonathan ben Uziel, and the secrets thereof are revealed to those who know the mystic lore of the Torah. Thus in the Revelation on Mount Sinai, wherever Elokim is mentioned in that section, Onkelos renders it as “the Glory” or “the Word of G-d,” but when Scripture mentions the Tetragrammaton he does not so render it. All this is done by Onkelos with extraordinary care and wisdom, and I will yet mention¹⁶⁴See Ramban on Exodus 20:19. this with the help of G-d, blessed be He. Now the reason that Onkelos literally translated the verse, And ‘Elokim’ spoke all these words, saying,¹⁶⁵Ibid., 20:1. [rather than render it, “and the Glory of G-d spoke,” as he usually does wherever Elokim is mentioned], is that it is said, Face to face the Eternal spoke¹⁶⁶Deuteronomy 5:4. unto your whole assembly.¹⁶⁷Ibid., Verse 19. The student learned [in the mystic lore of the Cabala] will understand.
However, the reason why Onkelos here literally translated, I will go down with thee to Egypt, [and did not paraphrase it as “My Glory will go down with thee],” is that he wanted to allude to that which the Rabbis have said:¹⁶⁸Mechilta Shirah 3. See also Megillah 29a. “When they were exiled to Egypt, the Divine Presence went with them, as it is said, I will go down with thee to Egypt. When they were exiled to Elam, the Divine Presence went down with them, as it is said, And I will set My throne in Elam.”¹⁶⁹Jeremiah 49:38. Thus both the verse which speaks of G-d “saying” [namely, And He said, I am G-d, the G-d of thy father, etc.],¹⁷⁰Verse 3 here. and [the verse which speaks of G-d] “going down,” [namely, I will go down with thee], are alike [for they both refer to the Creator in His true essence], as I have explained above, and therefore he could not, under any circumstances, have translated in any other way, as I have hinted. But there in the case of Jacob’s dream, Onkelos could not have literally translated, “and behold I am with thee,” [and was forced to paraphrase it as, “and My word will be in thy help],”¹²⁹Above, 28:15. because it is written there, And, behold, the Eternal stood beside him.¹⁷¹28:13. Since the Tetragrammaton (“the Eternal”) represents the attribute of mercy, had Onkelos literally translated Verse 15, “and, behold, I am with thee,” it would have indicated that this attribute would follow Jacob into exile since at the outset of this matter in Verse 13, Scripture uses the Tetragrammaton. Hence Onkelos translated Verse 15 as, ‘and My word will be in thy help,’ which is a reference to the attribute of judgment. (Bei’ur Ha’lvush to Rekanati on the Torah, who quotes the words of Ramban.) The student learned [in the mystic lore of the Cabala] will understand. And due to the fact that Onkelos found the meaning of this verse not to be in line with its plain meaning, he therefore spurned [literally translating the rest of the verse, and rendered it as referring to assistance], and thus he said, “My word will be in thy help,” instead of saying “My word will be with you,” as he said in the case of Moses.¹³¹Ibid., 3:12. And may G-d show us wonders in His Torah.

לאלוקי אביו יצחק, He had become this because Yitzchok had previously built an altar there to this G’d when G’d had appeared to him there as we know from 26,25 where Yitzchok was reported offering sacrifices there as had done his father Avraham.

לאלוקי אביו יצחק. The reason why Yitzchok is mentioned here is because he too was about to escape from a famine by traveling to Egypt, whereas in his case, G’d stopped him from going there. (26,2) Yaakov, as opposed to his father, offered meat offerings at Beer Sheva. This town was at the border of the land of Canaan, and he wanted to enquire from G’d if he had His approval in his undertaking to leave the Holy Land a second time in his life. The sacrifices he offered were intended to restore the Holy Spirit to him which had departed when Joseph had departed from him.

ויזבח זבחים, “meat-offerings of thanksgiving.” For having arrived at Beer Sheva with all his family without mishap. Alternately, these offerings were because he set out once more to leave the Holy Land and he was not certain that G’d approved of what he was doing. He used the offerings hoping to receive guidance from the Almighty. As we shall see, he received such approval, plus the assurance that in Egypt his descendants would develop into a numerous nation, but that he himself would be buried in the grave of his father and grandfather in the Holy Land.

ויזבח זבחים לאלו-הי אביו יצחק, “he offered meat-offerings to the G’d of his father Yitzchak.” The Torah really should have written: “he offered sacrifices to the Lord.” Seeing that the Torah did not use this wording, it is clear that the emphasis on the words “G’d of his father” refers to the attribute of G’d which had served as the model his father Yitzchak was in the habit of emulating. It was the attribute גבורה, the attribute of Justice. This was a kind of admission that Yaakov felt he had already been granted by G’d all that he was entitled to. Until he had returned to the land of Canaan, Yaakov had not been able to serve that particular attribute of G’d exclusively. This is why the Torah here informed us that this particular sacrifice of Yaakov was offered specifically to this attribute of G’d.
This is what the sages in Bereshit Rabbah 94,5 had in mind when they said concerning this verse that we learn from it that “a person is obligated to honor his father more than his grandfather.” The name of G’d י-ה-ו-ה represents the attribute of חסד, loving kindness, Avraham’s (Yaakov’s grandfather’s) outstanding attribute. Had the Torah reported Yaakov as offering his sacrifice to Hashem, i.e. the attribute י-ה-ו-ה, Yaakov would have demonstrated more honour for his grandfather than for his father. This is why the Torah here spoke of “the G’d of his father Yitzchak,” [even adding the name Yitzchak though all us know that Yaakov’s father was Yitzchak. Ed.]
In the same section of Bereshit Rabbah 94,5 the illustration provided by the Midrash as to what constitutes honouring ”one’s father before one’s grandfather is that one greets one’s student before greeting one’s teacher.” This means that when one encounters both Rabbi and student simultaneously, one first addresses the student. Seeing that the students walk ahead of their teacher, one encounters them first and also greets them as one meets them. One does not get to meet the teacher until after one has met the students. Seeing that Yitzchak was a student of Avraham, Yaakov sacrificed to the attribute represented by Yitzchak described by the Torah as “the G’d of his father Yitzchak.” Yaakov was bound to mention Yitzchak ahead of Avraham either because Yitzchak had been Avraham’s student or because Yitzchak was Yaakov’s father.
The type of sacrifices which Yaakov offered were שלמים, “peace-offerings,” seeing Yaakov realised that the exile commenced now for his sons, something which filled him with fear. He considered it appropriate therefore to offer them to the attribute of פחד יצחק, i.e. the attribute of Justice. The word שלמים contains an allusion to the fact that Yaakov strove to perfect his various character traits. Seeing that this was his goal, he merited a vision of the “weaker” form of that attribute, i.e. G’d appeared to him in a nocturnal vision while he was asleep. This was to reassure him that although he was on the way to Egypt and to exile that his descendants would not perish as a result of being exiled. When the Torah stressed that G’d appeared to him במראות הלילה, “in a nocturnal vision,” this was an allusion to the fact that subsequent to their exile, his descendants would experience redemption after having suffered cruel persecution.

A person must honor his father more than ... his grandfather... Rashi is answering the question: Why did it not say, “To the God of his fathers”? Or, “To the God of Avraham,” who was the main one to spread knowledge of Hashem’s Presence? Whereas Yitzchok received [this knowledge] from Avraham.

Da brach Israel auf, in der freudigsten Stimmung, in dem Glanz- und Höhepunkt seines ganzen, in bitteren Kämpfen und Leiden so vielfach geprüften Lebens, er und all die Seinigen.

לא־לוהי אביו יצחק, “to the G-d of his father Yitzchok. His father Yitzchok had offered a sacrifice at the same altar, as we know from Genesis 26,28.

לאלהי אביו יצחק TO THE GOD OF HIS FATHER, ISAAC — The duty of honouring one’s father is more imperative than that of honouring one’s grandfather (Genesis Rabbah 94:5); therefore the sacrifices are associated with the name of Isaac and not with that of Abraham.

Sie reisten südwärts und kamen an die letzte Grenzstadt, an das durch die Erinnerung der Väter verherrlichte Beer-Schewa. Da opferte er זבחים. Wir finden nicht wieder, dass unsere Erzväter זבחים geopfert hätten. Sie, wie alle Noachiden, brachten vielmehr nur עולה .עולות drückt die gänzliche Hingebung an Gott aus, זבח ist an sich ein von den בעלים zu verzehrendes Familienmahl, und weiht die Familienstätte, das "Familienhaus" und den Familientisch zu Tempel und Altar. זבחים, ja in der Regel שלמים, drücken ja den höheren Gedanken aus, dass "Gott zu uns komme"; sie werden daher aus jenem heiteren Bewusstsein dargebracht, dass, wo ein Familienkreis pflichttreu und einig lebt und sich von Gott getragen fühlt, da אלקי׳ בדור צדיק, da sei Gott gegenwärtig. Darum sind שלמים, "Friedensopfer" des gottgesegneten Familienlebens, so spezifisch jüdisch. Der Gedanke des Aufgehens in Gott und des Hingebens an Gott dämmerte auch in nichtjüdischen Gemütern. Allein, dass das gewöhnliche Leben so von Gott durchdrungen sein kann, dass "man isst und trinkt und schaut dabei Gott", dass alle unsere Familienräume Tempel, unsere Tische Altäre, unsere Jünglinge und Jungfrauen Priester und Priesterinnen, diese Durchgeistigung des gewöhnlichen Privatlebens, das ist eine Spende des Judentums. Dass Jakob-Israel nicht עולות, sondern זבחים opferte, das liegt darin, dass Jakob sich jetzt zum erstenmale in seinem Familienkreise glücklich und heiter und "ganz" fühlte. In diesem Bewusstsein und Gefühle brachte er Gott ein "Familienopfer" und in diesem Gefühle brachte er sein Opfer, tief bedeutsam, אבין לאלקי יצחק nicht allgemein לאלקי׳. In dem Liede am roten Meere spricht Israel: זה אל ואנוהו אלקי אבי וארוממנהו: "In dieser meiner Rettung hat sich Gott als die mich tragende Allmacht mir gezeigt, auf dass ich ihn in meine Mitte aufnehme und ihm eine entsprechende Stätte werde; es ist dies aber derselbe Gott, den mich die Väter gelehrt, dem auch die Väter gedient, und der durch mich nur noch zu erhöhter Anerkennung gelangen will!" "Der Belehrung und dem זכות der Väter verdanke ich ich diese Rettung." So auch hier. Die Seligkeit, die Jakob eben jetzt empfand, schrieb er nicht seinem Verdienste, sondern dem זכות אבות zu. — Vielleicht auch ist es ein Hinblick auf die עקדה. Jakobs ganzes bisheriges Leben war nichts als eine in konkreter Wirklichkeit sich vollziehende עקדה, deren Auferstehungsmomente er eben jetzt sich genaht fühlte.