Vayetze

PARSH AT VAYET ZE

ANTECE DEN TS OF A NATI ON Ra bbi Ari Kahn Ya'akov leaves Be'er Sheva and heads toward Haran. He leaves laden with blessings, but he has no place to sleep. Ironically, all the blessings which he possesses do not provide him with any shelter from the elements. He uses stones for a pillow. There, on the ground, he dreams of a ladder which reaches into the heavens, with Angels of G-d ascending and descending. When he awakens, Ya'akov is afraid, and he says: How awesome is this place! This is no other than the House of G-d, and this is the gate to Heaven. When Ya'akov awoke in the morning, he took the stone which was under his head, and he set it up as a Matzeva--a pillar, and he poured oil on its head (i.e., atop it). And he called the name of this place Bet-El (House of G-d); however, Luz was its original name. Ya'akov vowed...”and this stone which I have put up as a pillar will become a House of G-d.(26:17-22) Ya'akov encounters G-d, perhaps for the first time. His response is to erect a monument or matzeva, which he vows to transform into a House of G-d upon his return. His behavior is understandable: He is but one individual, though certainly possessed of the great potential of the blessings bestowed on him. His vow is symbolic, an expression of his aspirations: Perhaps upon his return he will realize this potential, and the blessings bestowed upon him will come to their fruition, just as this one rock is destined to become an entire House of G-d. There is a subtle theme running through this week's and next week's Parshiot which is illustrated by the building of the matzeva, and subsequently of an altar. The underlying issue of Parshiot Vayetze and Vayishlach is the transformation of Ya'akov from a solitary, lonely individual on the run, to the leader of a clan which will in turn become a great nation. The pillar symbolizes the individual’s spiritual quest, while the “house of G-d” symbolizes a nation’s place of worship. However, there is a problem; a technical problem, a legal problem, but a problem nonetheless. The Torah states: You shall not set up any pillar--matzeva-- which the Lord your G-d despises. (D’varim 16:22) Rashi notes that a matzeva is made of but one stone, while an altar is made of many. The former was despised because of its identification with Canaanite idolatry:

Even though it (i.e. the making of matzevot) was a beloved practice during the time of the Patriarchs, it is now despised.(Rashi ibid) If a matzeva is something despised by G-d, why does Ya'akov erect one? While it is interesting to analyze the types of religious behavior displayed by the forefathers, it would certainly be unfair to judge them through the prism of contemporary religious practice. Nonetheless, it is still disturbing to find Ya'akov doing something that is "despised by G-d". The halachic issues raised here are certainly of interest, but beyond our present scope: How is an acceptable practice metamorphosized into an unacceptable one? How does something beloved by G-d become contemptible? The answer to this question lies in the essence of the religious practice on the one hand and the identity of the practitioner on the other. The matzeva made of one stone was an acceptable form of practice before the emergence of the Jewish nation. When the Patriarchs lived, they were essentially individuals who encompassed national aspirations and potential. Therefore, one stone reflected their individuality. However, once the nation comes into existence, relating to G-d must be via an altar of many stones gathered together, reflecting the unity which forms a nation out of many individuals. And G-d said to Ya'akov, ‘Go up to Bet-El and dwell there and build an altar to G-d Who appeared to you when you fled from Esav your brother. (35:1) By this point, G-d commands Ya'akov to build an altar; evidently, the change in status from individual to nation has occurred. The construction is no longer with a single, individual rock, but with many small ones. Upon analysis of the section preceding G-d's command, we find Ya'akov not completely aware of the impending change, or of the fact that it may already have, or should already have taken place. The context is instructive: Ya'akov had traveled to Haran to marry and start a family. He returns to Israel with his wives and 12 children after extricating himself, with great difficulty, from Lavan's house. This separation is permeated with great theological significance, as is. This idea may be illustrated by a celebrated passage in the Passover Haggada, where Lavan is compared unfavorably to Pharaoh, …for Par’oh sought to annihilate only the males, while Lavan sought "to uproot everything". What did Haz”al see in the text that elicited this shocking equation? The Biblical text does not recount any attempt by Lavan to kill his own children or grandchildren, Ya'akov's wives and their sons. Quite the opposite seems the case: Lavan seems truly wounded when Ya'akov takes his leave. And yet, Ya'akov recognizes that he must leave Lavan's house, make a clean break and return to the Land of Israel. The sinister act of Lavan, then, was not attempted murder;

rather, it was the seduction of Ya'akov to assimilate. Ya'akov recognized that he must flee Lavan's house and return to the Land of Israel if there was to be any hope of fulfilling his destiny. And Ya'akov outwitted Lavan the Arami, by leaving without a word. (31:20) When Lavan caught up with him and confronted him, Ya'akov explained himself: Because I was afraid; for I said, Perhaps you would take by force your daughters from me.. . . And Lavan answered Ya'akov, These daughters are my daughters, and these children are my children,, . . .(31:31,43) Lavan`s perspective was that Ya'akov and his family were in fact Lavan's family, and they were therefore one people. Ya'akov`s desire to take leave seems somewhat strange, elitist. Lavan was within his rights to charge Ya’akov with creating differences between them; this same charge, in fact, follows the Jews through many generations. By separating himself, Ya'akov expresses his separatist religious/nationalistic aspirations. Removing his family from Lavan’s house is a declaration of independence: It is Ya’akov’s, not Lavan’s family. Different destinies await Ya’akov and Lavan respectively. The time had come for Ya’akov to recognize his family as a nation. Perhaps he should have returned to Luz/ Beit El, and built the House of G-d, or at least the Altar. However, prior to the erection of this “House of G-d,” the episode of Dina unfolds. Let us look at the text: And Dina the daughter of Leah whom she bore to Ya'akov went out to see the daughters of the land. And Shchem the son of Hamor the Hivi, Prince of the land, saw her. He took her and lay with her and abused her( 34:1,2 ) Dina goes out to befriend the neighbors, a natural impulse; upon moving to a new land, she seeks companionship. Apparently, Dina does not feel any limitations, and she has no qualms about leaving her family/nation. If her action is understood as that of an individual girl going to visit her neighbors, we would not have given it a second thought had it not been for the unfortunate results. However, if the Jews are now a nation, then her step constitutes a breaking of barriers, now a totally unacceptable breach. Dina is described as a daughter of Ya'akov. Shchem is described as the son of Hamor, Prince of the land. If these two descriptions are intended to be parallel, then the incident must be viewed as involving the daughter of Ya'akov, leader or King of the Jewish Nation, who is abused by the son of the leader of the Hivi. If the son of a leader attacks the daughter of another leader the result is not a simple family squabble; it is, at least, an international incident, and at worst, war. Ya'akov seems to view the episode as no more than an unfortunate incident, on a personal or familial level. His children, on the other hand, see Shchem's actions as a declaration of war. They seem to sense that which eludes Ya'akov.

And Ya'akov heard that his daughter Dina had been defiled. (34:5) And the Sons of Ya'akov came from the field when they heard. The men (sons of Ya’akov) were saddened and greatly incensed, for (they felt) a disgrace was brought upon Israel by laying with the daughter of Ya'akov, a deed which shouldnot be done.(34:7) Ya'akov hears that his daughter has been defiled; his sons hear that Israel has been disgraced. The sons see the act in a national context.1 For the first time, the term Israel is used to describe what was heretofore Ya'akov's family. The shift from private, individual life to national existence and experience has occurred in the minds of the sons. After all, had their father not led them out of the house of their grandfather in order to set them apart to form a separate entity? To them, their unique national destiny, which was clear and unequivocal, was already playing itself out. Ironically, Ya'akov seems unaware that the time has come to be a nation. His response to the sons' call for action is instructive: as individuals, as a family, we are out of our league, he explains. Perhaps in the future, when we become something more, we will have the wherewithal to respond differently, but now is not the time. How different is the viewpoint of the sons, who see themselves already as part of the future, as possessed of a responsibility to the coming generations of the Jewish People who will look to their actions for spiritual guidance. The text contains their impassioned response: Can we let our sister be taken for a whore?(34:31) The Targum Yonatan reads between the lines of their response: What will future generations of the Children of Israel understand when they read about these events in their synagogues each year?! (Targum Yonatan) What sort of role-models are we to be? Shchem has committed an act of war, and we have a responsibility to answer that challenge and to set national standards. Immediately after the Dina episode G-d calls upon Ya'akov to go to Bet-El and build the altar, thus fulfilling the vow he made when he fled from Esav. Not only the sons of Ya’akov, but also G-d Himself sees them as the People of Israel; at this point, worship must be formalized. Perhaps the entire incident with Dina might have been avoided had Ya'akov understood this new status earlier, at the point where the term Nation --"Am"-- was used for the first time: Immediately prior to the incident with Dina, after leaving the house of Lavan, Ya’akov prepared for his meeting with Esav. Ya’akov was greatly afraid and distressed; people) that were with him (32:8).

1

Rabbi Mordichai Elon made this observation.

and he divided HaAm (the

There is another change of identity which runs through Parshat Veyetze.Let us return to the beginning of the Parsha. And he called the name of that place Beth-El; but the name of that city was called Luz at the first. (27:19) Upon Ya’akov’s return the text seems to go to great lengths to describe Ya'akov's destination. So Jacob came to Luz, which is in the land of Canaan, that is, Bet-El, he and all the nation who were with him. And he built there an altar, and called the place El-Bet-El; because there G-d appeared to him when he fled from the face of his brother.(35:6,7) The altar is built in Luz, which Ya'akov himself had earlier renamed Bet-El. However, even on his deathbed, Ya'akov still refers to this place as Luz: And Ya'akov said to Yosef, G-d Almighty appeared to me in Luz blessed me. (48:3)

and

Why does Ya’akov revert to a name which has changed? Perhaps the change from Luz to Bet-El was not definitive, and parallels the Ya'akov/Yisrael duality, the individual/nation duality. What was Luz? Our Rabbis taught: Luz: This is the Luz where they dyed the t'chelet. This is the Luz which Saneherib invaded but did not conquer, and which Nebuchadnezar did not destroy. This is the Luz where the Angel of Death had no power. (Midrash Rabbah - Genesis LXIX:8) Luz seems to be a city with quite a formidable spiritual personality. Demonic forces have no control within its boundaries. Death was unknown there. In another context the Rabbis tell us that a particular part of the spine, called the Luz, will be the tool for the Resurrection of the Dead in the Messianic Age: Hadrian, may his bones be crushed, asked R. Joshua b. Hananiah, saying: ‘From which part of the body will the Holy One, blessed be He, in the Time to Come, cause man to sprout forth?' He answered: 'From the Luz of the spinal column.’ (Midrash Rabbah - Vayikra XVIII:1) Luz seems to be indestructible, whether it be the Luz of the spine or Luz the city. Similarly, Ya’akov is indestructible. The Gemara states: Rav Yochanan said, ‘Ya'akov our Patriarch is not dead.’ They said to him, ‘Was he not eulogized, embalmed and buried?’ Rav Yochanan answered, . . . ‘He is connected to his descendants. Just as his descendants live, so he lives.’ (Ta’anit 5b)

The Gemara tells us that Ya'akov lives on. Such a declaration is not made about Avraham or Yitzchak. Why is it that Ya'akov alone is said to live on? Rav Yochanan refers to the Nation of Israel, and not to Israel, or Ya'akov himself. It is through his descendants that he lives; specifically, the aspect of Ya'akov expressed by the name Yisrael is eternal. The eternal nature of the Jewish People emanates from Ya'akov's first encounter with the Almighty under the stars in the city of Luz. We can further appreciate the uniqueness of Luz by looking more closely at the tradition cited in the Midrash Rabbah quoted earlier: The Midrash stated that in Luz the t'chelet, the dye used to make tzitzit, was manufactured.2 There are two colors on the tzitzit: lavan- white and t'chelet-blue. context, the Gemara reports:

In another

Rav Meir asks why blue was chosen from among all the other colors: t’chelet resembles the sea, and the sea resembles the sky. The sky, in turn, resembles the Divine Throne (Menahot 43B). Just as the blue of the ocean or of the sky are elusive in nature, so the heavens themselves and the Divine Throne are elusive, beyond man's grasp. Rabbi Yosef Dov Soloveitchik Za”Tzal explained that the white represents logic or clarity. Alternatively, the blue represents "meta-logic" - the divine breath which energizes man spiritually.3 With the mitzva of Tzitzit, Jews are commanded to conduct their everyday lives surrounded by white and blue, the logical and the heavenly. Additionally, the Yiddish/Hebrew word “tachlis” is actually another application, or an alternative vocalization, of the same word, “t’cheles”. Tachlis means "the purpose," for while Jews surely operate based on logic, there is a second aspect which motivates the Jew: "Tachlis," the essence or purpose of creation. At times, when we are involved in the mundane , we lose sight of the purpose of our existence. At those times we are commanded to look at the t’chelet in order to remind us of our lofty destiny. The Talmud teaches that in the morning, we can be ready to accept G-d’s kingdom by saying the Sh’ma only as soon as we can distinguish between the white and the blue. Only someone who can sense the blue which reflects the throne of G-d can truly accept G-d’s dominion. The t’chelet, then, is a means of connecting to heaven. This was, in a sense, the purpose of Ya'akov’s dream, the meaning of his vision of the "ladder with its feet on the ground and its head reaching the heavens". In this light, Ya'akov’s encounter with Lavan gains greater significance. The threat of assimilation presented by Lavan seems curious when regarded in purely logical terms: After all, logically speaking, is there really a difference between one man and the next? Lavan’s argument makes perfect sense. Perhaps that is why he was called Lavan- white! The only way a Jew can withstand that particular threat 2 3

See LOUIS GINZBERG Legends of the Jews Volume 4, Notes to Judges Note 28 See Rabbi Abraham Besdin “Man of Faith in the Modern world – Reflections of the Rov” volume 2 page 25ff .

is if he is connected with the heavens. Only the Jew who can see beyond the logical can be free of Lavan. Only a Jew who sees himself as part of a great nation, with a mission and a destiny, will be liberated from Lavan’s arguments. For this reason, Ya'akov stopped in Luz: The vision of the ladder, a singular experience, will be permanently represented by the t’chelet, which will serve as a permanent ladder for every Jew who wishes to connect with Heaven. The secret of the eternity of the Jewish People has its origins in the city of Luz, for in Luz Ya’akov, and thus all Jews, learned how to lie on the ground but still look up to the heavens.